MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3000159324 · doi:10.1364/ao.379406

Iterative retrieval method for ocean attenuation profiles measured by airborne lidar

2020· article· en· W3000159324 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Hang Liu, Peng Chen, Zhihua Mao, Delu Pan

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Optics · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing and LiDAR Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Key Research and Development Program of ChinaNatural Science Foundation of Zhejiang ProvinceNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaMinistry of Natural Resources
KeywordsLidarRemote sensingAttenuationOpticsAttenuation coefficientAtmospheric opticsEnvironmental scienceAtmospheric correctionOcean colorReflectivityGeologySatellitePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lidar remote sensing for ocean optical properties has been increasingly applied because of its ability to provide vertical structure information, which cannot be directly obtained by ocean color remote sensing. However, the application of this technology demands an inversion method to infer two quantities, i.e., attenuation and backscatter, from a single measurement. Here, a new iterative retrieval method is demonstrated to deduce the attenuation coefficient from ocean lidar return signals. One calculates the logarithmic backscatter-to-attenuation ratio k by an iterative solution based on a bio-optical model. Procedural examples of lidar-processing results—from raw data to attenuation—are presented, and the inversion results are compared with in situ measurements. The correlation coefficient R between the lidar-retrieval and in situ measurements is 0.8, and the root mean square error (RMSE) is 0.032. We then map the vertical structure of the lidar-retrieved attenuation along airborne lidar flight tracks and discuss the influences of k , the reference depth z m , and the reference value α m . Consequently, the reference value has little influence on the results for high-optical-thickness water, and k is the main error source in lidar return inversion. Primary results indicate that this method provides a more accurate k and improves the inversion accuracy of the lidar attenuation coefficient.

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)0.003
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.239 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations26
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied OpticsSame topicRemote Sensing and LiDAR ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207