MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2902210666 · doi:10.1002/qj.3448

Estimation of ground‐based GNSS Zenith Total Delay temporal observation error correlations using data from the NOAA and E‐GVAP networks

2018· article· en· W2902210666 on OpenAlexaffabout
Stephen Macpherson, Stéphane Laroche

Bibliographic record

VenueQuarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGNSS positioning and interference
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
FundersNatural Environment Research CouncilSight Research UK
KeywordsData assimilationGNSS applicationsDecorrelationCovarianceZenithCovariance matrixMeteorologySatelliteMathematicsEnvironmental scienceGeodesyComputer scienceAlgorithmStatisticsGlobal Positioning SystemPhysicsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In preparation for possible higher frequency assimilation of ground‐based Global Navigation Satellite System (GB‐GNSS) Zenith Total Delay (ZTD) observations at Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC), two popular diagnostic methods are applied to observation‐minus‐background and observation‐minus‐analysis departures from the ECCC Global Deterministic Prediction System (GDPS) to estimate temporal ZTD observation error correlations within the 6 h assimilation window. The GDPS uses a four‐dimensional ensemble‐variational (4D‐EnVar) data assimilation system with a background error covariance matrix (B‐matrix) obtained from an equal blend of 3D static and 4D flow‐dependent (ensemble‐based) background error covariances. The two diagnostic methods, the Desroziers method and the Hollingsworth–Lönnberg method, are applied using ZTD observations from the North American NOAA network and the European EIG EUMETNET GNSS Water Vapour Programme (E‐GVAP) network with similar results obtained for both networks. Correlations estimated with the Desroziers method drop off rapidly with time difference becoming significantly negative for observations separated by more than 2–3 h. The results are unexpected as there is no obvious physical basis for negative correlations. It is shown how suboptimal specification of the background error covariances in the 4D‐EnVar assimilation system B‐matrix could explain the unexpected aspects of the results obtained with this method. In contrast, diagnosed observation error covariances without negative temporal correlations are obtained with the Hollingsworth–Lönnberg method, where a decorrelation time‐scale on the order of 4 h is found. Both methods capture some expected features of the error correlations, such as highly correlated errors between observations within the same 1 h data processing blocks. While considerable uncertainty is associated with the results due to the inherent assumptions and limitations of both methods, the results do suggest that ZTD observation error decorrelation time‐scales are on the order of a few hours rather than days as suggested by early pioneering work with different error correlation estimation methods.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.251
Threshold uncertainty score0.271

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.212 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations4
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQuarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological SocietySame topicGNSS positioning and interferenceFrench-language works237,207