Comparison of Remove-Compute-Restore and University of New Brunswick Techniques to Geoid Determination over Australia, and Inclusion of Wiener-Type Filters in Reference Field Contribution
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The commonly adopted remove-compute-restore (RCR) technique for regional gravimetric geoid determination uses the maximum degree of a combined global geopotential model and regional gravity data via the spherical Stokes integral. The University of New Brunswick’s (UNB) technique involves the use of a deterministically modified integration kernel, a degree-20 satellite-only reference field, integration of high-frequency terrestrial gravity anomalies over a spherical cap of 6° radius about each computation point, and a separate computation of the truncation bias used Degrees 21–120 of a combined global geopotential model. Both approaches are tested over Australia and the resulting geoid models compared with a nationwide dataset of 1,013 Global Positioning System (GPS)-leveled points, and with the most recent Australian geoid model, AUSGeoid98. A subsequent experiment considers the commission errors in the reference field used by applying a Wiener-type filter based on the global degree- and error-degree variances of the EGM96 combined and EGM96S satellite-only global geopotential models. The theoretical basis of this adapted approach will be presented, together with comparisons of the resulting geoid solution with the 1,013 GPS-leveling data, UNB, RCR, and AUSGeoid98 solutions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it