MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Performance analysis of NOAA tropospheric signal delay model

2011· article· en· W2095142679 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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueMeasurement Science and Technology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGNSS positioning and interference
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
FundersNational Foundation for Science and Technology Development
KeywordsTroposphereSIGNAL (programming language)Computer scienceMeteorologyEnvironmental scienceRemote sensingGeologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tropospheric delay is one of the dominant global positioning system (GPS) errors, which degrades the positioning accuracy. Recent development in tropospheric modeling relies on implementation of more accurate numerical weather prediction (NWP) models. In North America one of the NWP-based tropospheric correction models is the NOAA Tropospheric Signal Delay Model (NOAATrop), which was developed by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Because of its potential to improve the GPS positioning accuracy, the NOAATrop model became the focus of many researchers. In this paper, we analyzed the performance of the NOAATrop model and examined its effect on ionosphere-free-based precise point positioning (PPP) solution. We generated 3 year long tropospheric zenith total delay (ZTD) data series for the NOAATrop model, Hopfield model, and the International GNSS Services (IGS) final tropospheric correction product, respectively. These data sets were generated at ten IGS reference stations spanning Canada and the United States. We analyzed the NOAATrop ZTD data series and compared them with those of the Hopfield model. The IGS final tropospheric product was used as a reference. The analysis shows that the performance of the NOAATrop model is a function of both season (time of the year) and geographical location. However, its performance was superior to the Hopfield model in all cases. We further investigated the effect of implementing the NOAATrop model on the ionosphere-free-based PPP solution convergence and accuracy. It is shown that the use of the NOAATrop model improved the PPP solution convergence by 1%, 10% and 15% for the latitude, longitude and height components, respectively.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.783
Threshold uncertainty score0.244

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.195
Teacher spread0.162 · 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