Evaluation of Accuracy of the Geodetic Reference Systems for the Modelling of Normal Gravity Fields of Nigeria
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The normal gravity fields of Nigeria have been modeled exploiting the Geodetic Reference System 1930 (GRS-30), Geodetic reference system 1967 (GRS-1967) and the world geodetic reference system 1984 (WGS-84). The determination of the normal gravity fields from the three Geodetic Reference Systems were carried out to evaluate the accuracy of one reference datum with respect to another. Descriptive statistics of the normal gravity field values modeled on regional and local scales showed a large difference ( 16.11mGal) between the 1930 reference earth model (GRS-30) and 1967 reference earth model (GRS-67). A large difference was also established between the 1930 and 1984 reference earth models. The large difference in the mean of normal gravity field is attributed to error inherent in the Potsdam value ( 16mGal). However, the small difference in normal gravity field values between the 1967 and 1984 reference systems is a pointer that the choice of either application in geophysical exploration or geodetic applications is of minor importance. The trends in discrepancies between the 1930 and 1967 reference earth models and 1930 and 1984 reference earth models are reflected in the standard deviation and standard error (S.E) of the normal gravity field values.
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 | 0.004 | 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 | 0.000 | 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".