Determining remote sensing spatial resolution requirements for the monitoring of harmful algal blooms in the Great Lakes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Harmful algal blooms (HABs) have become a major health and environmental concern in the Great Lakes. In 2014, severe HABs prompted the State of Ohio to request NASA Glenn Research Center (GRC) to assist with monitoring algal blooms in Lake Erie. The most notable species of HAB is Microcystis aeruginosa, a hepatotoxin producing cyanobacteria that is responsible for liver complications for humans and other fauna that come in contact with these blooms. NASA GRC conducts semiweekly flights in order to gather up-to-date imagery regarding the blooms' spatial extents and concentrations. Airborne hyperspectral imagery is collected using two hyperspectral imagers, HSI-2 and HSI-3. Hyperspectral imagery is necessary in order to conduct experiments on differentiation of algal bloom types based on their spectral reflectance. In this analysis, imagery from September 19, 2016 was utilized to study the subpixel variability within the footprint of arbitrary sized pixels using several analysis techniques. This particular data set is utilized because it represents a worst case scenario where there is significant potential for public health concern due to high concentrations of microcystin toxin found in the water on this day and the concurrent observational challenges to accurately measure the algal bloom concentration variability with a remote sensing system due to the blooms high spatial variability. It has been determined that the optimal spatial resolution to monitor algal blooms in the Great Lakes is at most 50 m, and for much lower error 25 m, thus allowing for greater ease in identifying high concentration blooms near the surface. This resolution provides the best sensitivity to high concentration areas that are of significant importance in regard to human health and ecological damage.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".