NRCan’s Compliance Program for high accuracy, GNSS services: ensuring compatibility with the Canadian Spatial Reference System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There are currently over 700 Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) reference stations actively broadcasting corrections (Active Control Stations — ACSs) in Canada. This number has been consistently growing since the early 2000s. In 2009, the federal, provincial, and territorial members of the Canadian Council on Geomatics (CCOG) recognized that consumers of GNSS corrections data had very little ability to verify that service providers were following best practices to ensure the quality of their work. It is common for surveyors to delineate property boundaries or to define the location of civil infrastructure with significant economic value, so being dependent upon another party without quality assurance was perceived as a major risk. Additionally, this new dependence upon commercial ACSs for GNSS corrections posed a threat to the consistency of position values in Canada. To address this concern, CCOG tasked its Canadian Geodetic Reference System Committee (CGRSC) with developing a plan to describe, validate, and provide certification of the GNSS corrections services consumed by industry. This paper summarizes the development of Natural Resources Canada’s (NRCan) Compliance Program for High Accuracy, GNSS Services, and how it can benefit professional surveyors across 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 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 | 0.000 | 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".