Enhancing Turbidity Modeling in the Mississippi River Using Machine Learning and Sentinel‐2 Remote Sensing Data: A Generalizability Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Turbidity is an important indicator of water quality in hydrology. More traditional ways to monitor turbidity can provide reliable results. However, they are prone to human error, have elevated costs, and lack real-time monitoring capacity. Addressing these hindrances, in this work we combine spectral bands and indices from Sentinel-2 with several machine learning paradigms, namely XGBoost, Random Forests, GMDH, Support Vector Regression, k-Nearest Neighbors and Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator to model turbidity, using data from twelve monitoring stations encompassing the Mississippi River, USA. Results show that considering the individual monitoring stations, the ML paradigms for turbidity modeling were satisfactory at locations with a larger range and standard deviation values, achieving a mean R2 value of 59.5%. Tree-based models were the best overall approach, often ranking as the best or second-best performing model. When all the samples from the monitoring stations were used, the XGBoost provided superior output for turbidity modeling, reaching an R2 equal to 75.7%. A comprehensive comparison with the literature found values showed that the models implemented using this study’s methodology could provide competitive results, deeming it as an alternative for turbidity modeling from remote sensing data.
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) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".