Quality Control (QC) procedures for Australia’s National Reference Station’s sensor data—Comparing semi-autonomous systems to an expert oceanographer

Elisabetta B. Morello , Guillaume Galibert , Daniel Smith , Ken R. Ridgway , Ben Howell , Dirk Slawinski , Greg P. Timms , Karen Evans , Timothy P. Lynch
{"title":"Quality Control (QC) procedures for Australia’s National Reference Station’s sensor data—Comparing semi-autonomous systems to an expert oceanographer","authors":"Elisabetta B. Morello ,&nbsp;Guillaume Galibert ,&nbsp;Daniel Smith ,&nbsp;Ken R. Ridgway ,&nbsp;Ben Howell ,&nbsp;Dirk Slawinski ,&nbsp;Greg P. Timms ,&nbsp;Karen Evans ,&nbsp;Timothy P. Lynch","doi":"10.1016/j.mio.2014.09.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The National Reference Station (NRS) network, part of Australia’s Integrated Marine Observing System (IMOS), is designed to provide the baseline multi-decadal time series required to understand how large-scale, long-term change and variability in the global ocean are affecting Australia’s coastal ocean ecosystems. High temporal resolution observations of oceanographic variables are taken continuously across the network’s nine moored stations using a Water Quality Monitor (WQM) multi-sensor. The data collected are made freely available and thus need to be assessed to ensure their consistency and fitness-for-use prior to release. Here, we describe a hybrid quality control system comprising a series of tests to provide QC flags for these data and an experimental ‘fuzzy logic’ approach to assessing data. This approach extends the qualitative pass/fail approach of the QC flags to a quantitative system that provides estimates of uncertainty around each data point. We compared the results obtained from running these two assessment schemes on a common dataset to those produced by an independent manual QC undertaken by an expert oceanographer. The qualitative flag and quantitative fuzzy logic QC assessments were shown to be highly correlated and capable of flagging samples that were clearly erroneous. In general, however, the quality assessments of the two QC schemes did not accurately match those of the oceanographer, with the semi-automated QC schemes being far more conservative in flagging samples as ‘bad’. The conservative nature of the semi-automated systems does, however, provide a solution for QC with a known risk. Our software systems should thus be seen as robust low-pass filters of the data with subsequent expert review of data flagged as ‘bad’ to be recommended.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":100922,"journal":{"name":"Methods in Oceanography","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.mio.2014.09.001","citationCount":"14","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Methods in Oceanography","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211122014000425","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 14

Abstract

The National Reference Station (NRS) network, part of Australia’s Integrated Marine Observing System (IMOS), is designed to provide the baseline multi-decadal time series required to understand how large-scale, long-term change and variability in the global ocean are affecting Australia’s coastal ocean ecosystems. High temporal resolution observations of oceanographic variables are taken continuously across the network’s nine moored stations using a Water Quality Monitor (WQM) multi-sensor. The data collected are made freely available and thus need to be assessed to ensure their consistency and fitness-for-use prior to release. Here, we describe a hybrid quality control system comprising a series of tests to provide QC flags for these data and an experimental ‘fuzzy logic’ approach to assessing data. This approach extends the qualitative pass/fail approach of the QC flags to a quantitative system that provides estimates of uncertainty around each data point. We compared the results obtained from running these two assessment schemes on a common dataset to those produced by an independent manual QC undertaken by an expert oceanographer. The qualitative flag and quantitative fuzzy logic QC assessments were shown to be highly correlated and capable of flagging samples that were clearly erroneous. In general, however, the quality assessments of the two QC schemes did not accurately match those of the oceanographer, with the semi-automated QC schemes being far more conservative in flagging samples as ‘bad’. The conservative nature of the semi-automated systems does, however, provide a solution for QC with a known risk. Our software systems should thus be seen as robust low-pass filters of the data with subsequent expert review of data flagged as ‘bad’ to be recommended.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
澳大利亚国家参考站传感器数据的质量控制程序——将半自主系统与海洋学家专家进行比较
国家参考站(NRS)网络是澳大利亚综合海洋观测系统(IMOS)的一部分,旨在提供多年时间序列基线,以了解全球海洋的大规模、长期变化和变异如何影响澳大利亚沿海海洋生态系统。使用水质监测仪(WQM)多传感器,在网络的9个系泊站连续进行高时间分辨率的海洋变量观测。所收集的数据是免费提供的,因此需要在发布之前进行评估,以确保数据的一致性和适用性。在这里,我们描述了一个混合质量控制系统,包括一系列测试,为这些数据提供QC标志,以及一个实验性的“模糊逻辑”方法来评估数据。这种方法将QC标志的定性通过/失败方法扩展到提供每个数据点周围不确定性估计的定量系统。我们将在共同数据集上运行这两种评估方案获得的结果与由海洋学家专家进行的独立手动QC产生的结果进行了比较。定性标记和定量模糊逻辑QC评估被证明是高度相关的,能够标记明显错误的样本。然而,一般来说,两种QC方案的质量评估并不能准确地与海洋学家的质量评估相匹配,半自动QC方案在标记样品为“坏”方面要保守得多。然而,半自动系统的保守性确实为具有已知风险的QC提供了解决方案。因此,我们的软件系统应被视为数据的稳健低通过滤器,随后专家对标记为“坏”的数据进行审查。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Editorial Board Final issue of Methods in Oceanography Measuring pH in the Arctic Ocean: Colorimetric method or SeaFET? A topological approach for quantitative comparisons of ocean model fields to satellite ocean color data Optical methods for estimating apparent density of sediment in suspension
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1