MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4283454301 · doi:10.3389/frsen.2022.876748

Spatial Variability of In Situ Above-Water Reflectance in Coastal Dynamic Waters: Implications for Satellite Match-Up Analysis

2022· article· en· W4283454301 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Remote Sensing · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMarine and coastal ecosystems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersCanadian Space AgencyCanada Foundation for InnovationNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMarine Environmental Observation Prediction and Response Network
KeywordsRemote sensingRadianceImage resolutionEnvironmental scienceOcean colorSatelliteSubpixel renderingSpatial variabilityTemporal resolutionSpectroradiometerSpatial distributionGeologyPixelReflectivityComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The validation of ocean color satellite retrievals generally relies on analyzing match-ups between in situ measurements and satellite retrievals. These analyses focus on the quality of the satellite data, however, of the same importance is the quality of the in situ data. Here, we present the spatial variability of in situ above-water reflectance (R rs (0+)) within the spatial resolution of different ocean color satellites—300, 900, 1500, and 3000 m spatial resolutions, mimicking Sentinel 3 OLCI and MODIS-Aqua satellites, and possible 3 × 3 and 5 × 5 windows. Radiometric data was acquired with autonomous radiometric sensors installed in the British Columbia Ferry Services Inc. vessel “Queen of Alberni” from May to September 2019, crossing the optically dynamic waters of the Strait of Georgia, Canada. The dataset followed optimal geometry of acquisition and processing, including corrections for skylight radiance signals, ship superstructure, the non-isotropic distribution of the water-leaving radiances, and quality control. A total of 33,073 spectra at full resolution, corresponding to 10 days, were considered for the analysis presented here. The results showed that, overall, the subpixel variability increased as the spatial resolution of the sensor or the window size increased, mainly in a linear fashion. Specifically, spatial variability of R rs (0+) was the largest (∼18% and 68% for 900 and 3000 m pixel resolution, respectively) in Near Field Plume Interface waters, followed by in the Ocean Water Interface (∼28% and 35%, respectively), thus indicating spatial heterogeneity of interface waters. Further, we found that the estuarine waters showed higher subpixel R rs (0+) variability (∼8% and 16% for 900 and 3000 m, respectively) compared with plume and oceanic waters. We showed that the high spatial variability in R rs (0+) was primarily associated with the spatial dynamics of the optical water constituents, thus limiting the use of these datasets as Fiducial Reference Measurements and for validation of satellite-derived atmospherically corrected reflectance. We suggest that spatial variability of the in situ R rs (0+) should also be considered in the selection criteria for good match-up data, especially for data acquired in coastal dynamic systems. As a result, it will advocate for the exclusion of interface or transition water pixel grids in order to avoid compromising the statistical result of satellite validation.

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.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.513
Threshold uncertainty score0.981

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.216 · 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