MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3082446116 · doi:10.3390/rs12172835

Validation of Sentinel-3A Based Lake Level over US and Canada

2020· article· en· W3082446116 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Karina Nielsen, Ole Andersen, Heidi Ranndal

Bibliographic record

VenueRemote Sensing · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFlood Risk Assessment and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEuropean Space Agency
KeywordsPearson product-moment correlation coefficientEnvironmental scienceSatelliteMean squared errorOutlierPhysical geographyStatisticsClimatologyRemote sensingMeteorologyGeographyGeologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Satellite altimetry is an important contributor for measuring the water level of continental water bodies. The technique has been applied for almost three decades. In this period the data quality has increased and the applications have evolved from the study of a few large lakes and rivers, to near global applications at various scales. Products from current satellite altimetry missions should be validated to continuously improve the measurements. Sentinel-3A has been operating since 2016 and is the first mission operating in synthetic aperture radar (SAR) mode globally. Here we evaluate its performance in capturing lake level variations based on a physical and an empirical retracker provided in the official level 2 product. The validation is performed for more than 100 lakes in the United States and Canada where the altimetry based water levels are compared with in situ data. As validation measures we consider the root mean squared error, the Pearson correlation, and the percentage of outliers. For the US sites the median of the RMSE value is 25 cm and 19 cm and the median of the Pearson correlations are 0.86 and 0.93 for the physical and empirical retracker, respectively. The percentage of outliers (median) is 11% for both retrackers. The validations measures are slightly poorer for the Canadian sites; the median RMSE is approximately 5 cm larger, the Pearson correlation 0.1 lower, and the percentage of outliers 5% larger. The poorer performance for the Canadian sites is mainly related to the presence of lake ice in the winter period where the surface elevations are not able to map the surface correctly. The validation measures improve considerably when evaluated for summer data only. For both areas we show that the reconstruction of the water level variations based on the empirical retracker is significantly better compared to that of the physical retracker in terms of the RMSE and the Pearson correlation.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.757
Threshold uncertainty score0.780

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.199 · 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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRemote SensingSame topicFlood Risk Assessment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207