TOWARD AN IMPROVED ORTHOMETRIC HEIGHT SYSTEM FOR CANADA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Au Canada, les hauteurs sont definies dans le systeme des hauteurs orthometriques selon une methode proposee par Helmert en 1890. Toutefois, beaucoup de travail theorique sur les hauteurs a ete accompli depuis, conduisant a une definition plus rigoureuse des hauteurs orthometriques. La nouvelle definition tient compte des effets de la rugosite du terrain, de la densite topographique anomale variable lateralement et de la perturbation de la gravite du geoide de la TN, qui ne sont pas consideres dans la methode de Helmert. Cet article presente un calcul des corrections des hauteurs orthometriques de Helmert, les mettant a jour selon la definition plus rigoureuse. Les corrections pour chaque effet, ainsi que la correction totale comprenant les trois effets, sont evaluees pour une zone d'essai au Canada qui comprend plusieurs types de terrains. La correction peut atteindre quelques decimetres dans certaines zones montagneuses.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".