MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2901460611 · doi:10.4095/292856

Guidelines for RTK/RTN GNSS surveying in Canada

2013· report· en· W2901460611 on OpenAlexaffabout
Brian Donahue, J Wentzel, R. Berg

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGeographic Information Systems Studies
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSurveyorGNSS applicationsGeomaticsChristian ministryGeographyGeodetic datumOperations researchLibrary sciencePolitical scienceComputer scienceCartographyEngineeringTelecommunicationsLawGlobal Positioning System

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Foreword This set of guidelines for Real Time Kinematic (RTK)/Real Time Network (RTN) Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) surveying has been prepared to assist the surveying community in Canada through sharing what we view to be best practices. The guidelines have been prepared in response to needs expressed by the Federal, Provincial, and Territorial members of the Canadian Council on Geomatics (CCOG). The work was coordinated by the Canadian Geodetic Reference System Committee (CGRSC), a sub-committee of CCOG, and the guidelines were developed by a team from different agencies, Federal and Provincial. A number of other individuals, agencies, and professional land surveying associations in Canada have also contributed to this effort, and we wish to thank them for improving this product. Although the authors strove for accuracy, please let us know if you find any errors or omissions and we will amend the text accordingly in future versions. Special thanks to Brian Donahue, Geodetic Survey Division; Jan Wentzel, Surveyor General Branch; and Ron Berg, Ministry of Transportation Ontario; for their leadership in completing this project, and to all the CGRSC members who provided valuable feedback throughout the process. We sincerely hope that these guidelines make a positive contribution to surveying in Canada.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.350
Threshold uncertainty score0.990

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.344
GPT teacher head0.440
Teacher spread0.096 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations11
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGeographic Information Systems StudiesFrench-language works237,207