Performance and Consistency of Final Global Ionospheric Maps from Different IGS Analysis Centers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ionospheric delay is one of the most problematic errors in satellite-based positioning data processing. The Global Ionospheric Map (GIM), which is publicly available daily in various analysis centers, is thus vitally important for positioning users. There are variations in the accuracy and consistency of GIMs issued by Ionosphere Associate Analysis Centers (IAACs) due to the differences in ionospheric modeling methods and selected tracking stations. In this study on the International GNSS Service’s (IGS) final GIM, the ionospheric total electron content (TEC) (from 243 global navigation satellite system (GNSS) monitoring stations around the world) and the ionospheric TEC (from the Jason-3 altimeter satellite) are selected as reference. By using these three references, we evaluate the performance and consistency of final GIM products from seven IGS IAACs, including the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS), the Center for Orbit Determination in Europe (CODE), Natural Resources Canada (EMR), the European Space Agency (ESA), the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya (UPC), and Wuhan University (WHU) in the mid-solar activity year (2022) and the low-solar activity year (2020). Firstly, the comparison with the IGS final GIM shows that the consistency of each GIMs is basically the same, with the mean value ranging from −0.3 TECu (total electron content unit) to 1.4 TECu. Secondly, the validation with Jason-3 altimeter satellite shows that the accuracy of several GIMs is almost the same, except for the JPL with the worst accuracy and an overall mean deviation (BIAS) between 2 and 6 TECu. Thirdly, the comparison with VTEC extracted from GNSS monitor stations shows that the CAS has the best accuracy in different latitude bands with a root mean square (RMS) of about 2.2–4.7 TECu. In addition, it is found that the accuracy in areas with more stations for ionospheric modelling is better than those with less stations in different latitude bands; meanwhile, the accuracy is closely related to the modeling methods of different GIMs.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".