A Meta-Analysis on Harmful Algal Bloom (HAB) Detection and Monitoring: A Remote Sensing Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Algae serves as a food source for a wide range of aquatic species; however, a high concentration of inorganic nutrients under favorable conditions can result in the development of harmful algal blooms (HABs). Many studies have addressed HAB detection and monitoring; however, no global scale meta-analysis has specifically explored remote sensing-based HAB monitoring. Therefore, this manuscript elucidates and visualizes spatiotemporal trends in HAB detection and monitoring using remote sensing methods and discusses future insights through a meta-analysis of 420 journal articles. The results indicate an increase in the quantity of published articles which have facilitated the analysis of sensors, software, and HAB proxy estimation methods. The comparison across multiple studies highlighted the need for a standardized reporting method for HAB proxy estimation. Research gaps include: (1) atmospheric correction methods, particularly for turbid waters, (2) the use of analytical-based models, (3) the application of machine learning algorithms, (4) the generation of harmonized virtual constellation and data fusion for increased spatial and temporal resolutions, and (5) the use of cloud-computing platforms for large scale HAB detection and monitoring. The planned hyperspectral satellites will aid in filling these gaps to some extent. Overall, this review provides a snapshot of spatiotemporal trends in HAB monitoring to assist in decision making for future studies.
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 | 0.028 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.032 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".