MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2219775876 · doi:10.1002/9781119147770.ch4

Accuracy Analysis and Evaluation of Angle Measurement System

2015· other· en· W2219775876 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeother
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeodetic Measurements and Engineering Structures
Canadian institutionsBritish Columbia Institute of Technology
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTheodoliteSystematic errorAtmospheric refractionObservational errorResidualRefractionRandom errorDeflection (physics)OpticsAccuracy and precisionSystem of measurementAcousticsComputer sciencePhysicsMathematicsAlgorithmStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This chapter discusses the sources of errors in angle measurements and how their influence can be minimized or eliminated. It describes survey instruments and measurements for the effects of systematic errors. Typical systematic errors that can only be removed by adjusting the instrument or by mathematically correcting the angle measurements are due to the following error sources: plummet error, standing axis error, plate bubble error, atmospheric refraction, and deflection of the vertical. Direction measurements by double-centering procedure must always be obeyed in order to eliminate systematic errors caused by mechanical misalignment of the theodolite's axial system. Sources of random errors are pointing, reading, leveling, and centering of measuring instrument as well as centering of the target and the effects of residual atmospheric refraction. Finally, the chapter deals with testing procedure for precision theodolites as measurement system for angles.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.988
Threshold uncertainty score0.592

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.205 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it