In defense of the classical height system
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary In many European countries, normal heights referred to the quasi-geoid as introduced by Molodenskij in the mid-20th century are preferred to the classical height system that consists of orthometric heights and the geoid as a reference surface for these heights. The rationale for this choice is supposed to be that in the classical height system, neither the geoid, nor the orthometric height can be ever known with centimetre level accuracy because one would need to know the topographical mass density to a level that can never be achieved. The aim of this paper is to question the validity of this rationale. The common way of assessing the congruency of a local geoid model and the orthometric heights is to compare the geoid heights with the difference between orthometric heights provided by leveling and geodetic heights provided by GNSS. On the other hand, testing the congruency of a quasi-geoidal model with normal height a similar procedure is used, except that instead of orthometric heights, normal heights are employed. For the area of Auvergne, France, which is now a more or less standard choice for precise geoid or quasi-geoid testing, only the normal heights are supplied by the Institute Geographic National, the provider of the data. This is clearly the consequence of the European preference for the Molodenskij system. The quality of the height system is to be judged by the congruency of the difference of the geoid/quasi-geoid heights subtracted from the geodetic heights and orthometric/normal heights. To assess the congruency of the classical height system, the Helmert approximation of orthometric heights is typically used as the transformation between normal and Helmert's heights is easily done. However, the evaluation of the differences between Helmert's and the rigorous orthometric heights is somewhat more involved as will be seen from the review in this paper. For the area of interest, the differences between normal and Helmert's heights at the control leveling points range between − 9.5 and 0 cm, differences between Helmert's and the rigorous orthometric heights vary between − 3.6 and 1.1 cm. The local gravimetric geoid model of Auvergne, computed by the Stokes–Helmert technique, is used here to illustrate the accuracy of the classical height system. Results show a very reasonable standard deviation (STD) of 3.2 cm of the differences between geoid values, derived from control leveling points, and gravimetric geoid heights when Helmert's heights are employed and even a smaller STD of 2.9 cm when rigorous orthometric heights are used. A corresponding comparison of a quasi-geoid model, computed by Least-Squares Modification of Stokes method, with normal heights show an STD of 3.4 cm.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".