Digital terrain elevation models produced using radar altimetry and GPS data
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Acquisition of any airborne geophysical data set involves two parameters: measurement of the actual signal being sought and definition of the position where each data observation is acquired. GPS provides accurate, estimates of the location of the sensor position relative to a defined ellipsoid. If at the same time one measures the distance from the observation platform to the surface of the Earth, using a radar altimeter, it is then possible to obtain an estimate of the elevation of the Earth's surface at that point. By generating a grid image of discrete elevation data it is possible to produce a digital terrain elevation model (DTEM) of the survey area. Most aeromagnetic surveys comprise a series of flight lines and orthogonal tie-lines. With ideal data a second pass over the same location (either on the tie-line versus the flight-line, or even en a subsequent survey) should give the same elevation. However, attributes of the source data and characteristics of the terrain being modeled can significantly affect the accuracy of results. Comparing elevation data generated from two aeromagnetic surveys of the same area in Southern Alberta shows it is necessary to apply a series of corrections to elevation data just as one might with aeromagnetic data.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 it