MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4398778252 · doi:10.3390/rs16111870

Chlorophyll-a Estimation in 149 Tropical Semi-Arid Reservoirs Using Remote Sensing Data and Six Machine Learning Methods

2024· article· en· W4398778252 on OpenAlexafffund
Victor Oliveira Santos, Bruna Monallize Duarte Moura Guimarães, Iran Eduardo Lima Neto, Francisco de Assis de Souza Filho, Paulo Alexandre Costa Rocha, Jesse Van Griensven Thé, Bahram Gharabaghi

Bibliographic record

VenueRemote Sensing · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing in Agriculture
Canadian institutionsLakes Environmental (Canada)University of Guelph
FundersConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e TecnológicoNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCoordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Environmental scienceRandom forestComputer scienceGradient boostingExtreme learning machineRemote sensingChlorophyll aMachine learningArtificial neural networkArtificial intelligenceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is crucial to monitor algal blooms in freshwater reservoirs through an examination of chlorophyll-a (Chla) concentrations, as they indicate the trophic condition of these waterbodies. Traditional monitoring methods, however, are expensive and time-consuming. Addressing this hindrance, we conducted a comprehensive investigation using several machine learning models for Chla modeling. To this end, we used in situ collected water sample data and remote sensing data from the Sentinel-2 satellite, including spectral bands and indices, for large-scale coverage. This approach allowed us to conduct a comprehensive analysis and characterization of the Chla concentrations across 149 freshwater reservoirs in Ceará, a semi-arid region of Brazil. The implemented machine learning models included k-nearest neighbors, random forest, extreme gradient boosting, the least absolute shrinkage, and the group method of data handling (GMDH); in particular, the GMDH approach has not been previously explored in this context. The forward stepwise approach was used to determine the best subset of input parameters. Using a 70/30 split for the training and testing datasets, the best-performing model was the GMDH model, achieving an R2 of 0.91, an MAPE of 102.34%, and an RMSE of 20.4 μg/L, which were values consistent with the ones found in the literature. Nevertheless, the predicted Chla concentration values were most sensitive to the red, green, and near-infrared bands.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.913
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.287 · 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.

Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations16
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRemote SensingSame topicRemote Sensing in AgricultureFrench-language works237,207