Comparative Analysis of Empirical and Machine Learning Models for Chl <i>a</i> Extraction Using Sentinel-2 and Landsat OLI Data: Opportunities, Limitations, and Challenges
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Remote retrieval of near-surface chlorophyll-a (Chla) concentration in small inland waters is challenging due to substantial optical interferences of various water constituents and uncertainties in the atmospheric correction (AC) process. Although various algorithms have been developed to estimate Chla from moderate-resolution terrestrial missions (∼10–60 m), the production of both accurate distribution maps and time series of Chla has proven challenging, limiting the use of remote analyses for lake monitoring. Here, we develop a support vector regression (SVR) model, which uses satellite-derived remote-sensing reflectance spectra (Rrsδ) from Sentinel-2 and Landsat-8 images as input for Chla retrieval in a representative eutrophic prairie lake, Buffalo Pound Lake (BPL), Saskatchewan, Canada. Validated against in situ Chla from seven ice-free seasons (N ∼ 200; 2014–2020), the SVR model outperformed both locally tuned, Rrsδ-fed empirical models (Normalized Difference Chlorophyll Index, 2- and 3-band, and OC3) and Mixture Density Networks (MDNs) by 15–65%, while exhibiting comparable performance to a locally trained MDN, with an error of ∼35%. Comparison of Chla retrieval models, AC processors (iCOR, ACOLITE), and radiometric products (Rayleigh-corrected, surface, and top-of-atmosphere reflectance) showed that the best Chla maps and optimal time series (up to 100 mg m−3) were produced using a coupled SVR-iCOR system.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".