An evaluation of recent GOCE geopotential models in Brazil
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An evaluation of recent GOCE geopotential models in Brazil Several global geopotential models based on Gravity field and steady-state Ocean Circulation Explorer (GOCE) data have been published in the last two years. Some of these models use combinations of different satellite missions, while others use only GOCE data. This paper presents the evaluation and analysis of each approach using GOCE data in the Southeast of Brazil. Two assessments have been made. We compared the geoid heights derived from GOCE-based models with the geoidal heights from 176 GPS stations on leveling benchmarks. The findings show an improvement in GOCE-based models TIM_R3 (0.40 m) and DIR_R3 (0.39 m) for degree and order 210 in relation to EGM2008 (0.44 m) in terms of RMS. For the other models the results did not exceed 0.44 m. The second evaluation reports the comparison in terms of gravity disturbances between terrestrial gravity data and the models. The results, in terms of RMS and up to degree and order 210, indicate slightly low GOCO 02S values (10.34 mGal), TIM_R2 (10.37 mGal) and TIM_R3 (10.47 mGal) compared to EGM2008 (10.66 mGal). We also applied the residual terrain model and, as a result, the RMS errors were reduced by ~35% (~6.0 mGal) in the entire area and by ~45% in the mountain region.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".