Evaluation of W0 in Canada using tide gauges and GOCE gravity field models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The existing Canadian Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1928 (CGVD28) does not meet the needs of the modern user in terms of accuracy and accessibility. As a result, Canada plans to implement a geoid-based and global navigation satellite system (GNSS)-accessible vertical datum by 2013. One of the primary concerns in realizing this new vertical datum is to determine a W0 value that will represent the potential of the zero height surface. The objective of this study is to evaluate W0 by averaging the potential of points on the mean sea water surface utilizing tide gauge recordings and gravity field and steady-state ocean circulation explorer (GOCE)-based global geopotential models. In order to assess the performance of the GOCE-based models for the computation of W0, the models are extended with the high resolution gravitational model EGM2008. Regional gravimetric geoid models are also used for the estimation of W0. Additionally, local sea surface topography models are utilized in order to validate the W0 results at the tide gauges. Excluding the Arctic coast, the W0 values obtained from both tide gauges and oceanic sea surface topography models are not statistically different from the International Earth Rotation and Reference Systems Service (IERS) 2010 global conventional value 62636856.00 m2/s2.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".