Global vs Local Random Forest Model for Water Quality Monitoring: Assessment in Finger Lakes Using Sentinel-2 Imagery and Gloria Dataset
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Machine learning (ML) methods such as Random Forest (RF) have shown promises to estimate Secchi Disk Depth (Zsd). However, lack of a comprehensive dataset has been a long-lasting issue for training ML models in remote sensing of water quality. To aid the training process, the GLORIA dataset has recently provided access to hyperspectral in-situ measurements of remote sensing reflectance (Rrs) along with associated water quality parameters for globally representative inland and coastal waters. We use simulated Sentinel-2 Rrs to train a global model using GLORIA and then validate it on independent data from Finger Lakes, USA. When compared to RF model trained on Finger Lakes data, the validation results indicate better performance (Mean Absolute Error (MAE) 37%) as compared to the global model trained on GLORIA (MAE 94%). However, when the global model was validated on independent dataset from GLORIA (i.e. Lake Erie), the results were promising (MAE 34%). Therefore, the models can be used to estimate Zsd globally, provided the uncertainties in deriving satellite based Rrs are accounted for.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".