Comparison of surface and shipborne gravity data with satellite-altimeter gravity data in Hudson Bay
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several free satellite-altimetry models in the public domain may be used to study the Earth's gravity field. In this study, we compare the Bouguer anomaly map of the Hudson Bay region calculated from the satellite-derived V18 model of D. Sandwell (Scripps Institution of Oceanography) and W. Smith (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) with one compiled from measurements (GSC data set) made on the ice shelf and by ship. Noise exists in both data sets and takes the form of linear anomalies along ship tracks on the GSC map and of random high-frequency anomalies on the map derived from satellite altimetry. Spectral analysis of both maps indicates a good correspondence for anomalies wider than 15 km. In central Hudson Bay, the mean difference between the two maps is −1.6 mGal indicating only a small offset between the two data sets. Standard deviation of the difference is 2.35 mGal. The correspondence between anomaly shapes on profiles indicates that satellite-derived gravimetry is certainly good enough for regional studies. Our analysis confirms the usefulness of satellite-derived gravity in areas with incomplete gravity coverage such as the Hudson Strait and Foxe Basin north of Hudson Bay.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".