MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1604933984

The Geodetic Properties of the Equidistance Line

2003· article· en· W1604933984 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe International Hydrographic Review · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHistorical Geography and Cartography
Canadian institutionsCanadian Hydrographic Service
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLine (geometry)GeodesicGeodetic datumPoint (geometry)Boundary (topology)GeodesyMathematicsGeometryBoundary lineGeographyMathematical analysisGeology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The equidistance line has held pride of place in terms of maritime boundary delimitations - if not for the actual boundary, then for a starting point for discussions. Yet, many people do not understand the mathematical complexities of such a line when it is placed along the surface of the earth. The paper compares the strict equidistance line to the geodesic, the normal section line, the rhumb line and the great circle. The paper also evaluates the equidistance line against straight lines on various map projections.

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.984
Threshold uncertainty score0.654

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.250 · 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