Bibliographic record
Abstract
Deformation analysis: the caspary approachIn this paper, the theoretical background of the Caspary method of geodetic deformation analysis is described and implemented in a simulated geodetic network in which two epochs of measurements are used.The Caspary approach foresees congruence testing of the geodetic network, the determination of the stable points between two analysed epochs, the transformation of the geodetic network using S-transformation, the calculation of displacements, and, in the last step, the graphical presentation of displacement vectors.Results obtained from the presented example are similar to those presented in the Hannover, Karlsruhe, Delft, Fredericton, München, and robust methods.V članku je opisan postopek Caspary, ki je eden izmed postopkov deformacijske analize.Značilnosti tega postopka so testiranje skladnosti geodetske mreže, določitev stabilnosti točk med dvema terminskima izmerama, transformacija geodetske mreže s transformacijo S, izračun premikov in grafična predstavitev vektorjev premikov.V članku je najprej podano teoretično ozadje postopka, nato je postopek uporabljen na primeru simuliranih meritev dveh terminskih izmer.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".