A Comparison of Multi-Angle Implementation of Atmospheric Correction and MOD09 Daily Surface Reflectance Products From MODIS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study presents the first systematic comparison of MAIAC Collection 6 MCD19A1 daily surface reflectance (SR) product with standard MODIS SR (MOD/MYD09). The study was limited to four tiles located in mid-Atlantic United States (H11V05), Canada (H12V03), central Amazon (H11V09), and North-Eastern China (H27V05) and used over 5000 MODIS granules in 2018. Overall, there is a remarkable agreement between the best quality pixels of the two products, in particular in the Red and NIR bands. Over selected tiles, the evaluation found that MAIAC provides from 4 to 25% more high-quality retrievals than MOD09 annually, with the largest difference in tropical regions, confirming results of the previous studies. The comparison of spectral characteristics showed a systematic MAIAC-MOD09 difference increasing from NIR to Blue, typical of biases of a Lambertian assumption in MOD09 algorithm. Over the North-Eastern China, MCD19A1 SR is found more stable at wide range of aerosol optical depth (AOD) variations, whereas MOD09 SR shows a consistent positive bias increasing with AOD and at shorter wavelengths. The observed SR differences can be attributed to differences in cloud detection, aerosol retrieval and in atmospheric correction which is performed using an accurate BRDF-coupled radiative transfer model in MAIAC and a Lambertian surface model in MOD09. While this study is not representative of the global performance because of its limited geographical coverage, it should help the land community to better understand the differences between the two products.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".