MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4317932986 · doi:10.3390/rs15030687

Merged Multi-Sensor Ocean Colour Chlorophyll Product Evaluation for the British Columbia Coast

2023· article· en· W4317932986 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Sejal Pramlall, Jennifer M. Jackson, Marta Konik, Maycira Costa

Bibliographic record

VenueRemote Sensing · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMarine and coastal ecosystems
Canadian institutionsFisheries and Oceans CanadaUniversity of Victoria
FundersCanadian Space AgencyHakai InstituteNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMarine Environmental Observation Prediction and Response Network
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceProduct (mathematics)Scale (ratio)SeasonalityChlorophyll aPhytoplanktonMeteorologyRemote sensingClimatologyComputer scienceStatisticsGeographyMathematicsCartographyNutrientEcologyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Phytoplankton phenology studies require a dataset that is continuous in time and space since missing data have been shown to affect the accuracy of seasonality metrics. The interpolated GlobColour product provided by the Copernicus Marine Environment Monitoring Service (CMEMS) meets these requirements by being ‘gap filled’, thus yielding the highest spatial coverage. Despite being validated on a global scale, a regional comparison to in situ Chl-a concentrations should be conducted to enable product application in optically complex waters. This study aims to evaluate the performance of the GlobColour interpolated product in British Columbia coastal waters via a statistical match-up analysis and a qualitative analysis to determine whether the data reflect the region’s large-scale seasonal trends and latitudinal dynamics. Additionally, the statistical performance of the GlobColour interpolated product was compared to the original GlobColour and Ocean Colour Climate Change Initiative (OC-CCI) merged chlorophyll-a products based on in situ observations. The GlobColour interpolated product performed relatively well and was comparable to the best-performing product for each water type (RMSE = 0.28, r2 = 0.77, MdAD = 1.5, BIAS = 0.90). The statistics for all the products degraded in Case 2 waters, thus highlighting the dilemma of applying algorithms designed for Case 1 waters in Case 2 waters. Our results indicate how the quality of products can vary in different environmental conditions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.229
Threshold uncertainty score0.461

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.036
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.208 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations15
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRemote SensingSame topicMarine and coastal ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207