The Effect of Mineral Sediments on Satellite Chlorophyll-a Retrievals from Line-Height Algorithms Using Red and Near-Infrared Bands
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Red and near-infrared line-height algorithms such as the maximum chlorophyll index (MCI) are often considered optimal for remote sensing of chlorophyll-a (Chl-a) in turbid eutrophic waters, under the assumption of minimal influence from mineral sediments. This study investigated the impact of mineral turbidity on line-height algorithms using MCI as a primary example. Inherent optical properties from two turbid eutrophic lakes were used to simulate reflectance spectra. The simulated results: (1) confirmed a non-linear relationship between Chl-a and MCI; (2) suggested optimal use of the MCI at Chl-a < ~100 mg/m3 and saturation of the index at Chl-a ~300 mg/m3; (3) suggested significant variability in the MCI:Chl-a relationship due to mineral scattering, resulting in an RMSE in predicted Chl-a of ~23 mg/m3; and (4) revealed elevated Chl a retrievals and potential false positive algal bloom reports for sediment concentrations > 20 g/m3. A novel approach combining both MCI and its baseline slope, MCIslope reduced the RMSE to ~5 mg/m3. A quality flag based on MCIslope was proposed to mask erroneously high Chl-a retrievals and reduce the risk of false positive bloom reports in highly turbid waters. Observations suggest the approach may be valuable for all line-height-based Chl-a algorithms.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".