MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1985990911 · doi:10.1109/eftf.2012.6502399

Near real-time comparison of UTC(k)'s through a Precise Point Positioning approach

2012· article· en· W1985990911 on OpenAlexafffund
Pascale Defraigne, Q. Baire, Giancarlo Cerretto, François Lahaye, Daniele Rovera

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Frequency and Time Standards
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources Canada
FundersNatural Resources Canada
KeywordsTime transferPrecise Point PositioningComputer scienceSoftwareMetrologyReal-time computingGLONASSObservatoryAtomic clockSatelliteRemote sensingGlobal Positioning SystemGeodesyGNSS applicationsAerospace engineeringOperating systemEngineeringPhysicsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The time-transfer technique based on Precise Point Positioning (PPP) allows the comparison of atomic clocks with precisions at the level of hundred picoseconds. This paper presents the results obtained in near real-time using satellite orbit and clock information from IGS real-time streams and from the NRCan Ultra Rapid products (EMU). These results can be considered quite interesting for the National Metrology Institutes, providing a new tool for monitoring their UTC(k)'s. Two different PPP software tools have been used in this study, namely “Atomium” developed and operated at ORB and the NRCan-PPP soon to be operated at INRIM and LNE-SYRTE-OP in near real-time mode. This paper presents a quantification of the degree of equivalence of the results obtained from the analysis conducted using each software as well as the operational web page available at the Royal Observatory of Belgium, providing PPP solutions for the comparison of UTC(k)'s in near real-time.

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)0.004
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.288 · 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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Frequency and Time StandardsFrench-language works237,207