MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3047099039 · doi:10.1364/oe.397126

In situ evaluation of spaceborne CALIOP lidar measurements of the upper-ocean particle backscattering coefficient

2020· article· en· W3047099039 on OpenAlexafffund
Léo Lacour, Raphaël Larouche, Marcel Babin

Bibliographic record

VenueOptics Express · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics
Canadian institutionsTakuvik Joint International LaboratoryUniversité Laval
FundersHorizon 2020 Framework ProgrammeNational Aeronautics and Space AdministrationCanada First Research Excellence FundCanada Excellence Research Chairs, Government of CanadaCentre National d’Etudes SpatialesEuropean Research CouncilGovernment of Canada
KeywordsArgoLidarEnvironmental scienceRemote sensingCorrelation coefficientBiogeochemical cycleMeteorologyClimatologyGeologyGeographyMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The spaceborne CALIOP lidar, initially designed for atmospheric measurements, was recently used to retrieve the particulate backscattering coefficient ( b bp ) in ocean subsurface layers. However, extensive field evaluation of CALIOP estimates was never conducted due to the scarcity of in situ data. Here, year-round and basin-wide data from Biogeochemical Argo floats (BGC Argo) were used to evaluate CALIOP estimates in the North Atlantic. The high density of BGC Argo float profiles in this region allowed us to test different matchup strategies at different spatio-temporal scales. When averaged over 2° by 2° grid boxes and monthly time resolution, CALIOP data present reasonably good correlation with highly variable float b bp values (correlation r = 0.44, root mean square relative error RMS % = 13.2%), suggesting that seasonal dynamics can be characterized at basin scale.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.152
Threshold uncertainty score0.302

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.213 · 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 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

Citations31
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOptics ExpressSame topicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas DynamicsFrench-language works237,207