On the Applicability of Molodensky’s Concept of Heights in Planetary Sciences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Geometric heights, defined with respect to a geometric reference surface, are the most commonly used in planetary studies, but the use of physical heights defined with respect to an equipotential surface (typically the geoid) has been also acknowledged for specific studies (such as gravity-driven mass movements). In terrestrial studies, the geoid is defined as an equipotential surface that best fits the mean sea surface and extends under continents. Since gravimetric geoid modelling under continents is limited by the knowledge of a topographic density distribution, alternative concepts have been proposed. Molodensky introduced the quasigeoid as a height reference surface that could be determined from observed gravity without adopting any hypothesis about the topographic density. This concept is widely used in geodetic applications because differences between the geoid and the quasigeoid are mostly up to a few centimeters, except for mountainous regions. Here we discuss the possible applicability of Molodensky’s concept in planetary studies. The motivation behind this is rationalized by two factors. Firstly, knowledge of the crustal densities of planetary bodies is insufficient. Secondly, large parts of planetary surfaces have negative heights, implying that density information is not required. Taking into consideration the various theoretical and practical aspects discussed in this article, we believe that the choice between the geoid and the quasigeoid is not strictly limited because both options have advantages and disadvantages. We also demonstrate differences between the geoid and the quasigeoid on Mercury, Venus, Mars and Moon, showing that they are larger than on Earth.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".