LOCAL EVALUATION OF EARTH GRAVITATIONAL MODELS, CASE STUDY: IRAN
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Global gravity models are being developed according to new data sets available from satellite gravity missions and terrestrial/marine gravity data which are provided by different countries. Some countries do not provide all their available data and the global gravity models have many vague computational methods. Therefore, the models need to be evaluated locally before using. It is generally understood that the accuracy of global gravity models is enough for local (civil, mining, construction, etc.) projects, however, our results in Iran show that the differences between synthesized values and observation data reach up to ∼300 mGal for gravity anomalies and ∼2 m for geoid heights. Even by applying the residual topographical correction to synthetized gravity anomalies, the differences are still notable. The accuracy of global gravity models for predicting marine gravity anomalies is also investigated in Persian Gulf and the results show differences of ∼140 mGal in coastal areas. The results of evaluating selected global gravity models in Iran indicate that the EIGEN-6C4 achieves the lowest RMS for estimating the geoid heights. EGM08 predicts the closest results to terrestrial gravity anomalies. DIR-R5 GOCE satellite-only model estimates the low-frequency part of gravity field more accurately. The best prediction of marine gravity anomalies is also achieved by EGM08.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it