A Comparison of Single Reference Station, Correction-Based Multiple Reference Station, and Tightly Coupled Methods using Stochastic Ionospheric Modelling
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
Abstract. The multiple reference station approach to carrier phase-based positioning uses a network of GPS reference stations to model the correlated errors in a geographic region. This paper compares two methods for multiple reference station positioning under a low and a high level of ionosphere. The first method tested is the conventional method for multiple reference station positioning, which is usually a three-step process, namely (1) estimation of the carrier phase ambiguities in the network, (2) prediction of the measured network errors at the location of the rover, and (3) application of the corrections in a practical format. The second method is called the tightly coupled or in-receiver approach, which uses the data from the rover and integrates it with the network solution to better model the effect of the ionosphere. In this approach there are no explicit corrections. These two methods are compared with the single reference station approach for data from two days collected from the Southern Alberta Network in Canada, a medium scale network with inter-stations distance of 34 to 59 km.
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