Advances in the determination of a global unified reference frame for physical heights
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Measuring, studying, and understanding global change effects demand unified geodetic reference frames with (i) an order of accuracy higher than the magnitude of the effects to be observed, (ii) consistency and reliability worldwide, and (iii) long-term stability. The development of the International Terrestrial Reference System (ITRS) and its realisation, the International Terrestrial Reference Frame (ITRF), enable the precise description of the Earth’s geometry by means of geocentric Cartesian coordinates with an accuracy at the cm-level and with global consistency. An equivalent high-precise global height reference system that provides the basis for the consistent determination of gravity field-related coordinates worldwide, in particular geopotential differences or physical heights, is missing. Without a conventional global height system, most countries rely on local height systems, which have been implemented individually, applying in general non-standardised and non-uniform procedures. It is proven that their combination in a global frame presents discrepancies at the metre level. Therefore, a core objective of the international geodetic community is to establish an international standard for the precise determination of physical heights. This standard is known as the International Height Reference System (IHRS). Its realisation has been a main topic of research during the last years. Recent achievements concentrate on (1) compiling detailed standards, conventions, and guidelines for the IHRS realisation, (2) evaluating computational approaches for the consistent determination of potential differences, and (3) designing an operational infrastructure that ensures the maintenance and long-term stability of the IHRS and its realization. This contribution summarises advances and current challenges in the establishment, realization and sustainability of the IHRS.
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 | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.006 |
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".