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 <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"> <mml:mi>k</mml:mi> </mml:math> 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 <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"> <mml:mi>k</mml:mi> </mml:math> , the reference depth <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"> <mml:mrow class="MJX-TeXAtom-ORD"> <mml:msub> <mml:mi>z</mml:mi> <mml:mi>m</mml:mi> </mml:msub> </mml:mrow> </mml:math> , and the reference value <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"> <mml:mrow class="MJX-TeXAtom-ORD"> <mml:msub> <mml:mi>α</mml:mi> <mml:mi>m</mml:mi> </mml:msub> </mml:mrow> </mml:math> . Consequently, the reference value has little influence on the results for high-optical-thickness water, and <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"> <mml:mi>k</mml:mi> </mml:math> is the main error source in lidar return inversion. Primary results indicate that this method provides a more accurate <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"> <mml:mi>k</mml:mi> </mml:math> 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.645
Threshold uncertainty score0.534

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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