MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2284811322

Accurate Chart Latticing for Loran-C

2015· article· en· W2284811322 on OpenAlexaffabout
R. M. Eaton, A. R. Mortimer, David Gray

Bibliographic record

VenueThe International Hydrographic Review · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRadio Wave Propagation Studies
Canadian institutionsCanadian Hydrographic Service
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChartHydrographyShoreSubmarine pipelineComputer scienceCalibrationGeodesyTide gaugeRemote sensingMeteorologyEngineeringGeologyCartographyGeographyStatisticsSea levelMathematics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Unless the Loran-C lattice has much the same accuracy as any other feature shown, the chart is out of balance. There is not much point in charting hazards with great precision if the mariner must allow a large margin for positioning error in his navaid. The Canadian Hydrographic Service’s calibration program aims eventually to improve our knowledge of radio wave propagation so that we can rely on a calculated lattice with only a very few check points to verify the predictions. While we work towards this, we also map the lattice in the field so that we can put it on the chart accurately now. We calibrated the Canadian West Coast Loran-C chain in the Spring of 1977, using Satnav offshore to give the ± 150 m accuracy needed for latticing small scale charts. We looked for and found the predicted coastal phase recovery using Trisponder and sextant fixing. And we made observations on shore by helicopter and calibration van to give propagation data for future predictions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.096
Threshold uncertainty score0.190

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0210.007

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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.230 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe International Hydrographic ReviewSame topicRadio Wave Propagation StudiesFrench-language works237,207