MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2318695255 · doi:10.1515/jogs-2015-0013

Noise behavior in CGPS position time series: theeastern North America case study

2015· article· en· W2318695255 on OpenAlexafffund
Mohammad Ali Goudarzi, Marc Cocard, Rock Santerre

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geodetic Science · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGNSS positioning and interference
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersMinistère de l'Énergie et des Ressources Naturelles
KeywordsWhite noiseFlicker noiseNoise (video)AmplitudeFlickerColors of noiseRandom walkPosition (finance)Additive white Gaussian noiseStatisticsMathematicsPhysicsNoise figureComputer scienceTelecommunicationsOpticsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We analyzed the noise characteristics of 112 continuously operating GPS stations in eastern North America using the Spectral Analysis and the Maximum Likelihood Estimation (MLE) methods. Results of both methods show that the combination ofwhite plus flicker noise is the best model for describing the stochastic part of the position time series. We explored this further using the MLE in the time domain by testing noise models of (a) powerlaw, (b)white, (c)white plus flicker, (d)white plus randomwalk, and (e) white plus flicker plus random-walk. The results show that amplitudes of all noise models are smallest in the north direction and largest in the vertical direction. While amplitudes of white noise model in (c–e) are almost equal across the study area, they are prevailed by the flicker and Random-walk noise for all directions. Assuming flicker noise model increases uncertainties of the estimated velocities by a factor of 5–38 compared to the white noise model.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.158
Threshold uncertainty score0.313

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations14
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geodetic ScienceSame topicGNSS positioning and interferenceFrench-language works237,207