MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2016247510 · doi:10.1179/003962608x389988

Comparison and Analysis of Non-Linear Least Squares Methods for 3-D Coordinates Transformation

2009· article· en· W2016247510 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSurvey Review · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical and numerical algorithms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCurvilinear coordinatesGeodetic datumCoordinate descentTransformation (genetics)MathematicsLevenberg–Marquardt algorithmLeast-squares function approximationSet (abstract data type)Coordinate systemApplied mathematicsMathematical optimizationAlgorithmGeodesyComputer scienceGeographyStatisticsGeometryArtificial neural networkArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AbstractFour different methods are evaluated by solving the Molodensky 3-D coordinate transformation problem. These methods are Steepest Descent, Trust region, Gauss Newton and Levenberg-Marquardt. Also, the problem has been solved using the traditional combined least-squares adjustment. The solutions of these methods are compared by the number of iterations required for the objective function to converge to its minimum value. Externally, the RMSE of the transformed check stations of the geodetic network (curvilinear coordinates) are compared to the RMSE obtained by transforming the same set of check stations using the transformation parameters recommended by the Egyptian Survey Authority.Keywords: COORDINATE TRANSFORMATIONOPTIMISATION PROCEDURESNATIONAL GEODETIC NETWORKSWGS84

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.989
Threshold uncertainty score0.311

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.182
GPT teacher head0.520
Teacher spread0.337 · 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