Quality control coding: Difference between revisions

From Atomix
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 18: Line 18:


Another flag that can be used (in addition to the Quality flag) is GOOD PROBE:
Another flag that can be used (in addition to the Quality flag) is GOOD PROBE:
% GOOD PROBE, GP =
GOOD_PROBE
%      0, all probes are good
      0, all probes are good
%      1, sh1 only
      1, sh1 only
%      2, sh2 only
      2, sh2 only
%      3, sh1 and sh2
      3, sh1 and sh2
%      4, sh3 only
      4, sh3 only
%      5, sh1 and sh3
      5, sh1 and sh3
%      6, sh2 and sh3
      6, sh2 and sh3
%      7, sh1, sh2 and sh3
      7, sh1, sh2 and sh3
%      8, sh4 only
      8, sh4 only
%      999, all bad
      999, all bad





Revision as of 15:26, 9 May 2022

Example: DEFINE A NAME

copied from code--- to be tidied up: Provide a Q flag for every dissipation estimate Q =

      0, if all checks pass
      1, if FOM > FOM_limit
      2, if despike_fraction > despike_fraction_limit
      4, if |log(e_max)-log(e_min)|> 5 sigma


Combinations (sums) are:

      3, FOM and despike fraction fail
      5, FOM and sigma fail
      7, all fail

This allows one to identify the unique ....

Another flag that can be used (in addition to the Quality flag) is GOOD PROBE: GOOD_PROBE

      0, all probes are good
      1, sh1 only
      2, sh2 only
      3, sh1 and sh2
      4, sh3 only
      5, sh1 and sh3
      6, sh2 and sh3
      7, sh1, sh2 and sh3
      8, sh4 only
      999, all bad


Example: Ocean Sites

One option is to follow Ocean Sites for quailty control (QC) coding. The flagging scheme is mostly compatible with the primary level flagging recommended by Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of UNESCO (2013).


Flag Meaning Comment
0 unknown No QC was performed.
1 good data All QC tests passed.
2 probably good data Data have failed one or more QC tests but detailed examination after processing (e.g. by visual examination) suggests data is good.
3 potentially correctable bad data These data are not to be used without scientific correction or re-calibration (e.g. uncertain shear sensor sensitivity).
4 bad data Data have failed one or more tests.
5 - Not used
6 - Not used
7 nominal value Data were not observed but reported (e.g. instrument target depth.).
8 interpolated value Missing data may be interpolated from neighboring data in space or time.
9 missing value This is a fill value


Climate and Forecast Metadata Convention (CF) requires that QC flags carry attributes. In netCDF (Network Common Data Form) data files, the following information for quality control flagging should be provided for each data variable <PARAM>.

<PARAM>_QC
<PARAM>_QC:long_name = “quality flag of <PARAM>”;
<PARAM>_QC:conventions = “OceanSITES QC Flags”;
<PARAM>_QC:flag_values = 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9;
<PARAM>_QC:flag_meanings = “0:unknown 1:good_data 2:probably_good_data 3:potentially_correctable_bad_data 4:bad_data 7:nominal_value 8:interpolated_value 9:missing_value”