On the determination of atmospheric water vapor from GPS measurements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Surface‐based GPS measurements of zenith path delay (ZPD) can be used to derive vertically integrated water vapor (IWV) of the atmosphere. ZPD data are collected in a global network presently consisting of 160 stations as part of the International GPS Service. In the present study, ZPD data from this network are converted into IWV using observed surface pressure and mean atmospheric water vapor column temperature obtained from the European Centre for Medium‐Range Weather Forecasts' (ECMWF) operational analyses (OA). For the 4 months of January/July 2000/2001, the GPS‐derived IWV values are compared to the IWV from the ECMWF OA, with a special focus on the monthly averaged difference (bias) and the standard deviation of daily differences. This comparison shows that the GPS‐derived IWV values are well suited for the validation of OA of IWV. For most GPS stations, the IWV data agree quite well with the analyzed data indicating that they are both correct at these locations. Larger differences for individual days are interpreted as errors in the analyses. A dry bias in the winter is found over central United States, Canada, and central Siberia, suggesting a systematic analysis error. Larger differences were mainly found in mountain areas. These were related to representation problems and interpolation difficulties between model height and station height. In addition, the IWV comparison can be used to identify errors or problems in the observations of ZPD. This includes errors in the data itself, e.g., erroneous outlier in the measured time series, as well as systematic errors that affect all IWV values at a specific station. Such stations were excluded from the intercomparison. Finally, long‐term requirements for a GPS‐based water vapor monitoring system are discussed.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".