MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1982434435 · doi:10.2478/v10156-011-0050-7

Referencing regional geoid-based vertical datums to national tide gauge networks

2012· article· en· W1982434435 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Dimitrios Bolkas, G. Fotopoulos, Michael G. Sideris

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geodetic Science · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeophysics and Gravity Measurements
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Resources Canada
KeywordsGeoidGeodetic datumTide gaugeGeodesyGeologyUndulation of the geoidSea levelGeophysicsOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The objective of this study is to investigate the best means for referencing a regional geoid-based vertical datum to a network of tide gauges. In this study, a network of 27 tide gauge stations scattered along the coasts of Canada are used in order to assess the replacement of the conventionally derived Canadian Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1928 with a geoid-based datum. This is in-line with the future implementation plan of Canada’s geoid-based vertical height system. A mixed least-squares adjustment was performed for various scenarios, including satellite-only global geoid models, combined global geoid models and regional geoid models. In addition, various sea surface topography and vertical ground motion models were tested for estimating orthometric heights. The resulting approximation of a local equipotential surface is compared to previously published values and considerations for referencing a geoid-based vertical datum to tide gauge networks are emphasized.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.401
Threshold uncertainty score0.797

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2012
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geodetic ScienceSame topicGeophysics and Gravity MeasurementsFrench-language works237,207