MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4395071506 · doi:10.3389/fmars.2024.1309050

Comparison of ocean-colour algorithms for particulate organic carbon in global ocean

2024· article· en· W4395071506 on OpenAlexaff
Christina Eunjin Kong, Shubha Sathyendranath, T. J. Jackson, Dariusz Stramski, Robert J. W. Brewin, Gemma Kulk, Bror F. Jönsson, Hubert Loisel, Martí Galí, Chengfeng Le

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Marine Science · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMarine and coastal ecosystems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Centre for Earth ObservationNatural Environment Research CouncilSight Research UKEuropean Space Agency
KeywordsParticulate organic carbonAlgorithmOcean colorDetritusEnvironmental scienceParticulatesPhytoplanktonSatelliteRemote sensingReflectivityComputer scienceGeologyNutrientEcologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the oceanic surface layer, particulate organic carbon (POC) constitutes the biggest pool of particulate material of biological origin, encompassing phytoplankton, zooplankton, bacteria, and organic detritus. POC is of general interest in studies of biologically-mediated fluxes of carbon in the ocean, and over the years, several empirical algorithms have been proposed to retrieve POC concentrations from satellite products. These algorithms can be categorised into those that make use of remote-sensing-reflectance data directly, and those that are dependent on chlorophyll concentration and particle backscattering coefficient derived from reflectance values. In this study, a global database of in situ measurements of POC is assembled, against which these different types of algorithms are tested using daily matchup data extracted from the Ocean Colour Climate Change Initiative (OC-CCI; version 5). Through analyses of residuals, pixel-by-pixel uncertainties, and validation based on optical water types, areas for POC algorithm improvement are identified, particularly in regions underrepresented in the in situ POC data sets, such as coastal and high-latitude waters. We conclude that POC algorithms have reached a state of maturity and further improvements can be sought in blending algorithms for different optical water types when the required in situ data becomes available. The best performing band ratio algorithm was tuned to the OC-CCI version 5 product and used to produce a global time series of POC between 1997–2020 that is freely available.

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 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 score0.616
Threshold uncertainty score0.476

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations10
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Marine ScienceSame topicMarine and coastal ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207