Evaluation of the EGM2008 gravity field by means of GPS-levelling and sea surface topography solutions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The new EGM2008 global gravity field model is evaluated by comparisons of geoid heights computed from the model with those available at GPS levelling stations in various regions and by computing sea surface topography solutions from the difference between the mean sea surface and the geoid from this model. In order to identify how good the model performs the same tests also are performed for other recent global gravity field models. The evaluation method, in particular, has to take into account the omission error when truncating global gravity field models at chosen degrees and orders and when comparing them with observed quantities. The procedures applied for the computation of the omission error as well as the general methods applied for the evaluation are described in the paper. For testing the models there are available GPS levelling heights in six different regions (Europe, Germany, USA, Japan, Canada, Australia). Some of these data sets seem not to be adequate for evaluation purposes, because they exhibit long wavelength structures in the geoid height differences. Nevertheless, from the results of the geoid height comparisons one can conclude that the EGM2008 model performs best in most of the regions. Similar results are derived from the
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 | 0.000 | 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".