MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2962943868 · doi:10.5194/bg-17-475-2020

A global end-member approach to derive <i>a</i> <sub>CDOM</sub> (440) from near-surface optical measurements

2020· article· en· W2962943868 on OpenAlexaff
Stanford B. Hooker, Atsushi Matsuoka, Raphael M. Kudela, Youhei Yamashita, Koji Suzuki, Henry F. Houskeeper

Bibliographic record

VenueBiogeosciences · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMarine and coastal ecosystems
Canadian institutionsTakuvik Joint International LaboratoryUniversité Laval
FundersJapan Aerospace Exploration AgencyNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsColored dissolved organic matterArcticTurbidityEnvironmental scienceWater qualityAttenuationAttenuation coefficientInversion (geology)Surface waterWavelengthRemote sensingGeologyPhysicsOpticsChemistryOceanographyNutrient

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study establishes an optical inversion scheme for deriving the absorption coefficient of colored (or chromophoric, depending on the literature) dissolved organic material (CDOM) at the 440 nm wavelength, which can be applied to global water masses with near-equal efficacy. The approach uses a ratio of diffuse attenuation coefficient spectral end-members, i.e., a short- and long-wavelength pair. The global perspective is established by sampling “extremely” clear water plus a generalized extent in turbidity and optical properties that each span 3 decades of dynamic range. A unique data set was collected in oceanic, coastal, and inland waters (as shallow as 0.6 m) from the North Pacific Ocean, the Arctic Ocean, Hawaii, Japan, Puerto Rico, and the western coast of the United States. The data were partitioned using subjective categorizations to define a validation quality subset of conservative water masses (i.e., the inflow and outflow of properties constrain the range in the gradient of a constituent) plus 15 subcategories of more complex water masses that were not necessarily evolving conservatively. The dependence on optical complexity was confirmed with an objective methodology based on a cluster analysis technique. The latter defined five distinct classes with validation quality data present in all classes, but which also decreased in percent composition as a function of increasing class number and optical complexity. Four algorithms based on different validation quality end-members were validated with accuracies of 1.2 %–6.2 %, wherein pairs with the largest spectral span were most accurate. Although algorithm accuracy decreased with the inclusion of more subcategories containing nonconservative water masses, changes to the algorithm fit were small when a preponderance of subcategories were included. The high accuracy for all end-member algorithms was the result of data acquisition and data processing improvements, e.g., increased vertical sampling resolution to less than 1 mm (with pressure transducer precision of 0.03–0.08 mm) and a boundary constraint to mitigate wave-focusing effects, respectively. An independent evaluation with a historical database confirmed the consistency of the algorithmic approach and its application to quality assurance, e.g., to flag data outside expected ranges, identify suspect spectra, and objectively determine the in-water extrapolation interval by converging agreement for all applicable end-member algorithms. The legacy data exhibit degraded performance (as 44 % uncertainty) due to a lack of high-quality near-surface observations, especially for clear waters wherein wave-focusing effects are problematic. The novel optical approach allows the in situ estimation of an in-water constituent in keeping with the accuracy obtained in the laboratory.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.177 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations27
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiogeosciencesSame topicMarine and coastal ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207