CHAMP gravity field recovery using the energy balance approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Since the early days of satellite geodesy energy balance based methods for gravity field determination have been considered. If non-conservative forces are known the Hamiltonian along the orbit is a constant of the motion. Thus the gravity field can be determined if position and velocity of the satellite are known and accelerometer measurements are available to model the non-conservative part. CHAMP is the first satellite that provides the user with those three kinds of data nearly continuously. Numerical investigations using real CHAMP data are presented to show the feasibility of the method. Using a semi-analytical approach the gravity field can be determined efficiently by a 2D-Fourier method. Those fast computations also give way to application of the method not only to a full gravity field recovery but also, e.g. for quick-look and validation of SST observations for satellite missions like CHAMP, GRACE or GOCE. The method can also be used for estimation of accelerometer calibration parameters.Key words. gravity field, energy balance, Jacobi-integral, non-conservative forces, accelerometer calibration, CHAMP
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".