MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2075058146 · doi:10.5539/apr.v3n2p190

Strategies for Accurate Determination of Drift Characteristics of Unstable Gravimeter in Tropical, Coastal Environment

2011· article· en· W2075058146 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
A. A. Okiwelu, E. E. Okwueze, I. B. Osazuwa

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Physics Research · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeophysics and Gravity Measurements
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGravimeterStandard deviationCascadeGeodesyPhysicsGeologyMeteorologyGeophysicsStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The drift characteristics specific to an unstable gravimeter has been modeled to enhance high quality data that will be useful for gravimetric studies and to determine proper timing of field observations. A pre-field observation was carried out to monitor the tide and thus limiting the relative gravity observation to near-linear time window. Closed loop sequence technique of re-occupying a drift base compatible with the drift characteristics of the Lacoste and Romberg (model G446) and cascade model for the computation of drift were combined to obtain a more reliable data that fulfills the linear drift assumption. Subjecting the modelled drift to descriptive statistics a maximum value (1.6550mGal) and minimum value (- 0.3720mGal) of drift were obtained. This variability in drift values and the disparity between the mean (0.099mGal) and the standard deviation (0.2914mGal) is a pointer to various factors that caused the instrumental drift. Such factors could be attributed to external temperature, age and usage of the gravimeter, mechanical stress and strain in the mechanism as the gravimeter is moved and subjected to vibrations. The low standard error of the mean (0.0196mGal) is a reflection of the validity of the linear drift assumption using the cascade model and the field procedure compatible with the drift characteristics of the gravimeter.

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)0.000
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 score0.369
Threshold uncertainty score0.315

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.123
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.176 · 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

Citations2
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied Physics ResearchSame topicGeophysics and Gravity MeasurementsFrench-language works237,207