A report on JWG C.2: Quality control methods for climate applications of geodetic tropospheric parameters  
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>We have been analyzing the ZTD time series estimated from six REPRO3 IGS Analysis Centers (ACs), namely, COD, ESA, GFZ, GRG, JPL, TUG, to compare their long-term trends. Long-term here means 20 years or longer. About thirty stations have been selected globally for this purpose. The estimated ZTD time series have gone through a process of homogenization using ERA-5 derived ZTDs as reference. The homogenized data is then averaged to daily values to minimize potential influences coming from different estimation strategies used by individual ACs. As mentioned, our interest is with the long-term signal. Similar averaging is applied to the ERA-5 ZTDs. Two combinations, using weighted mean and (a robust) least median of squares, are being generated from the six homogenized ACs. The combinations serve as quality control to each ACs. Analysis of the trends generated from each one of the seven ZTD times series is performed looking at their similarities in both time and frequency domains. This is a work in progress and the presentation will focus on the process and early results.</p>
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".