MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4307825695 · doi:10.36227/techrxiv.14345153.v4

Development and validation of comprehensive closed formulas for atmospheric delay and altimetry correction in ground-based GNSS-R

2022· preprint· en· W4307825695 on OpenAlexaff
Thalia Nikolaidou, Marcelo C. Santos, Simon Williams, Felipe Geremia‐Nievinski

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSoil Moisture and Remote Sensing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGNSS applicationsInterferometryAltimeterAtmospheric refractionRemote sensingGeodesyRefractionElevation (ballistics)ReflectometrySatelliteRay tracing (physics)Atmospheric modelGeologyComputer scienceGlobal Positioning SystemPhysicsOpticsMeteorologyTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Radio wave propagation involved in Global Navigation Satellite System Reflectometry (GNSS-R) is subject to atmospheric refraction. Even for ground-based tracking stations, in applications such as coastal sea-level altimetry, the interferometric or reflection-minus-direct effect might be significant. Although atmospheric propagation delays are best investigated numerically via raytracing, including reflections, such a procedure is not trivial. We have developed simpler closed formulas to account for atmospheric refraction in ground-based GNSS-R, validated against independent raytracing. We provide specific expressions for the two components of the atmospheric interferometric delay and corresponding altimetry correction components, parameterized in terms of refractivity and bending angle. Assessment results showed excellent agreement for both components. We define the interferometric slant factor used to map interferometric zenithal delays to individual satellites. We also provide an equivalent correction for the effective satellite elevation angle such that the refraction effect is nullified.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.716
Threshold uncertainty score0.666

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.232 · 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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSoil Moisture and Remote SensingFrench-language works237,207