On the effective position of the free-fall solution and the self-attraction effect of the FG5 gravimeters
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
FG5 absolute gravimeters are the most accurate gravimeters available at present and have significant influence on the realization of a gravity reference through international comparisons of absolute gravimeters. The latter comparisons are the only way to maintain the traceability of absolute gravimetry to the International System of Units (SI). Sources of systematic error such as the self-attraction effect (SAE) have to be taken into account when determining accurate values of the acceleration due to gravity, as needed, for example, for the watt balance project or the International Gravity Reference System. In this paper the SAE for two types of FG5 gravimeter is estimated using two independent methods. The resulting SAEs are 1.2(0.2) µGal and 1.7(0.2) µGal for FG5 with fibre and bulk interferometer types, respectively. The importance of accurately defining the measurement height is emphasized in the context of the SAE. The accuracy and advantages of referring gravity measurements to an effective position of the free-fall solution are demonstrated together with a simple and accurate empirical estimation of this effective position.
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 | 0.030 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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