Avaliação da Determinação de Altitude Ortométrica Utilizando EGM2008 e MAPGEO2010 em Porto Alegre-RS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
de Geofísica Este texto foi preparado para a apresentação no VI Simpósio Brasileiro de Geofísica, Porto Alegre, 14 a 16 de outubro de 2014.Seu conteúdo foi revisado pelo Comitê Técnico do VI SimBGf, mas não necessariamente representa a opinião da SBGf ou de seus associados.É proibida a reprodução total ou parcial deste material para propósitos comerciais sem prévia autorização da SBGf.____________________________________________________________________ ResumoNeste trabalho foi avaliada a diferença entre as altitudes ortométricas obtidas por dois diferentes modelos de ondulação geoidal: o EGM2008 e o MAPGEO2010, considerando 94 pontos localizados no município de Porto Alegre/RS.Estes pontos possuem tanto a altitude ortométrica e a altitude geométrica.Com as ondulações geoidais advindos dos modelos calculou-se a altitude ortométrica de cada ponto e comparou com a altitude ortométrica conhecida.As diferenças obtidas são em média, da ordem de 33,4 cm para o MAPGEO2010 e de 36,2 cm para o EGM2008.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".