GEOID-QUASIGEOID CORRECTION IN FORMULATION OF THE FUNDAMENTAL FORMULA OF PHYSICAL GEODESY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To formulate the fundamental formula of physical geodesy at the physical surface of the Earth, the gravity anomalies are used instead of the gravity disturbances, because the geodetic heights above the geocentric reference ellipsoid are not usually available. The relation between the gravity anomaly and the gravity disturbance is defined as a product of the normal gravity gradient referred to the telluroid and the height anomaly according to Molodensky's theory of the normal heights (Molodensky, 1945; Molodensky et al., 1960). Considering the normal gravity gradient referred to the surface of the geocentric reference ellipsoid, this relation is redefined as a function of the normal height (VaníÄek et al., 1999). When the orthometric heights are practically used for the realization of the vertical datum, the geoid-quasigeoid correction is applied to the fundamental formula of physical geodesy to determine the precise geoid. Theoretical formulation of the geoid-quasigeoid correction to the fundamental formula of physical geodesy can be found in Martinec (1993) and VaníÄek et al. (1999). In this paper, the numerical investigation of this correction at the territory of Canada is shown and the error analysis is introduced.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".