MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2049569950 · doi:10.1190/1.1559040

Advantages of close line spacing in airborne gravimetric surveys

2003· article· en· W2049569950 on OpenAlexaff
Stephan Sander-Faes, V. Lavoie, John Peirce, Robert A. Charters

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Leading Edge · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeophysics and Gravity Measurements
Canadian institutionsATCO (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGravimetric analysisLine (geometry)Environmental scienceRemote sensingGeographyMathematicsChemistryGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Line spacing for airborne gravity surveys is one of the factors that can influence the accuracy and resolution of the resultant gravity grids. Sander Geophysics has flown several recent surveys with close line spacing to increase the accuracy and resolution of gravity data. Close line spacing improves the data in several ways. Filtering between adjacent lines reduces data acquisition noise on the grid data. Closer line spacing allows using the flight data to compute a better digital elevation model; this can, in turn, be used to improve the gravity terrain corrections. Closely spaced adjacent lines can also be used for quality control and to aid in data processing.

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 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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.258

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations6
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Leading EdgeSame topicGeophysics and Gravity MeasurementsFrench-language works237,207