MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4377103294 · doi:10.3390/rs15102610

Accounting for Non-Detects: Application to Satellite Ammonia Observations

2023· article· en· W4377103294 on OpenAlexaff
Evan J. White, Mark W. Shephard, Karen Cady‐Pereira, Shailesh Kumar Kharol, S. R. Ford, Enrico Dammers, Evan Chow, Nikolai Thiessen, David C. Tobin, Greg Quinn, Jason O’Brien, Jesse O. Bash

Bibliographic record

VenueRemote Sensing · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of WaterlooEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
FundersGoddard Space Flight CenterNuclear Safety and Security CommissionNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsSatelliteEnvironmental scienceAmmoniaRemote sensingAtmospheric sciencesMeteorologyPhysicsGeologyChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Presented is a methodology to explicitly identify and account for cloud-free satellite measurements below a sensor’s measurement detection level. These low signals can often be found in satellite observations of minor atmospheric species with weak spectral signals (e.g., ammonia (NH3)). Not accounting for these non-detects can high-bias averaged measurements in locations that exhibit conditions below the detection limit of the sensor. The approach taken here is to utilize the information content from the satellite signal to explicitly identify non-detects and then account for them with a consistent approach. The methodology is applied to the CrIS Fast Physical Retrieval (CFPR) ammonia product and results in a more realistic averaged dataset under conditions where there are a significant number of non-detects. These results show that in larger emission source regions (i.e., surface values > 7.5 ppbv) the non-detects occur less than 5% of the time and have a relatively small impact (decreases by less than 5%) on the gridded averaged values (e.g., annual ammonia source regions). However, in regions that have low ammonia concentration amounts (i.e., surface values < 1 ppbv) the fraction of non-detects can be greater than 70%, and accounting for these values can decrease annual gridded averaged values by over 50% and make the distributions closer to what is expected based on surface station observations.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.218 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations12
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRemote SensingSame topicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas DynamicsFrench-language works237,207