Inverse Absolute Height Weighting in the Highest Order Levelling Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD88) was established by the minimum-constrain adjustment of geodetic levelling observations in Canada, USA, and Mexico. It held fixed the height of the primary tidal benchmark at Rimouski, Quebec, Canada. The NAVD88 datum was never officially adapted in Canada due its large east-west tilt of 1.5 m from the Atlantic to Pacific coast (Hayden et al., 2012). Also, a large systematic difference (ranging from -20 cm to +130 cm) was found between NAVD88 and the pure geoid gravimetric models. Using Factor Analysis it was discovered that one of the factors, which can explain the tilt of the NAVD88, is the terrain, i.e. small in the flat states but large in the mountainous areas such as in the Rockies and the Appalachians (Li, 2012). A possible reason for the tilt of the NAVD88 might be the weights used into adjustment of the network. In this study the data of two precise national levelling networks are used, e.g. the Second Levelling of Finland and the Third Levelling of Bulgaria, in order to support the above hypothesis. An iterative procedure based on the Inverse Absolute Height Weighting (IAHW) is applied. The core of this procedure is to find this value of the power parameter (p) of the weights w=Hp, where H is the absolute elevation difference of the terminals in the levelling lines, that minimize the mean of the mean squared errors (MSE) of the nodal bench marks (NBM) in both networks. It has been found that p=1 and p=4.3 for the Bulgarian and the Finnish networks, respectively. Also, a similar iterative procedure based on the Inverse Distance Weighting (IDW) is performed and the best decisions for the Finnish and the Bulgarian networks are obtained. It has been found that the weights w=L-5.9 and w=L-1.6, where L is the length of the levelling line, lead to the minimal MSE of the NBM for the Finnish and the Bulgarian networks, respectively. The results of both the IDW and the IAHW procedures are compared. It has been revealed that the IAHW based adjustments lead to significantly less MSE of the NBM than all variants of the IDW. It has also been shown that concerning the Bulgarian and the Finnish analyzed here data, the IAHD approach leads to physically lower adjusted heights than the IDW. In some cases these differences are more than 1.5-2 times greater than the MSE of the corresponding bench marks.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 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".