MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4213062835 · doi:10.26552/com.c.2002.3.72-79

A Brief Overview to Theory of Heights

2002· article· en· W4213062835 on OpenAlexaff
Róbert Tenzer

Bibliographic record

VenueCommunications - Scientific letters of the University of Zilina · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeophysics and Gravity Measurements
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeoidUndulation of the geoidGeodesyGeologyGeophysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In various parts of the world many kinds of height systems have been formulated and practically used in the past. Nowadays, orthometric heights and normal heights are widely used. The orthometric heights are the natural heights above sea level, that is, above the geoid. The definition of the orthometric heights required the knowledge of the topographical masses density distribution between the Earth's surface and the geoid, at least theoretically. For this reason Molodensky in 1945 formed a theory of normal heights based on the principle that the heights can be evaluated without any hypothesis about the density distribution of topographical masses. Theoretical aspects of the definition of heights are described in this paper.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.447
Threshold uncertainty score0.359

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.144 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCommunications - Scientific letters of the University of ZilinaSame topicGeophysics and Gravity MeasurementsFrench-language works237,207