Evaluation of Satellite-Based Algorithms to Retrieve Chlorophyll-a Concentration in the Canadian Atlantic and Pacific Oceans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Remote-sensing reflectance data collected by ocean colour satellites are processed using bio-optical algorithms to retrieve biogeochemical properties of the ocean. One such important property is the concentration of chlorophyll-a, an indicator of phytoplankton biomass that serves a multitude of purposes in various ocean science studies. Here, the performance of two generic chlorophyll-a algorithms (i.e., a band ratio one, Ocean Colour X (OCx), and a semi-analytical one, Garver–Siegel Maritorena (GSM)) was assessed against two large in situ datasets of chlorophyll-a concentration collected between 1999 and 2016 in the Northeast Pacific (NEP) and Northwest Atlantic (NWA) for three ocean colour sensors: Sea-viewing Wide Field-of-view Sensor (SeaWiFS), Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS), and Visible Infrared Imaging Radiometer Suite (VIIRS). In addition, new regionally-tuned versions of these two algorithms are presented, which reduced the mean error (mg m−3) of chlorophyll-a concentration modelled by OCx in the NWA from −0.40, −0.58 and −0.45 to 0.037, −0.087 and −0.018 for MODIS, SeaWiFS, and VIIRS respectively, and −0.34 and −0.36 to −0.0055 and −0.17 for SeaWiFS and VIIRS in the NEP. An analysis of the uncertainties in chlorophyll-a concentration retrieval showed a strong seasonal pattern in the NWA, which could be attributed to changes in phytoplankton community composition, but no long-term trends were found for all sensors and regions. It was also found that removing the 443 nm waveband for the OCx algorithms significantly improved the results in the NWA. Overall, GSM performed better than the OCx algorithms in both regions for all three sensors but generated fewer chlorophyll-a retrievals than the OCx 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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".