Remote Retrieval of Suspended Particulate Matter in Inland Waters: Image-Based or Physical Atmospheric Correction Models?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this paper was to compare the limits of three image-based atmospheric correction models (top of the atmosphere (ToA), dark object subtraction (DOS), and cosine of the sun zenith angle (COST)), and three physical models (atmospheric correction for flat terrain (ATCOR), fast line-of-sight atmospheric analysis of spectral hypercubes (FLAASH)), and ACOLITE) for retrieving suspended particulate matter (SPM) concentrations in inland water bodies using Landsat imagery. For SPM concentration estimates, all possible combinations of 2-band normalized ratios (2bNR) were computed, and a stepwise regression was applied. The correlation analysis allowed highlighting that the red/blue 2bNR was the best spectral index to retrieve SPM concentrations in the case of image-based models, while the red/green 2bNR was the best in the case of physical models. Contrary to expectations, image-based atmospheric models outperformed the accuracy of physical models. The cross-validation results underlined the good performance of the DOS and COST models, with R2 > 0.83, NASH-criterion (Nash) > 0.83, bias = −0.01 mg/L, and RMSE < 0.27 mg/L. This outperformance was confirmed using blind test validation data, with an R2 > 0.86 and Nash > 0.58 for the DOS and COST models. The challenges and limitations involved in the remote monitoring of SPM spatial distribution in turbid productive waters using satellite data are discussed at the end of the paper.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".