MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2284811322

Accurate Chart Latticing for Loran-C

2015· article· en· W2284811322 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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

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.

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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.884
Threshold uncertainty score0.324

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.077
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