MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4365935267 · doi:10.1515/jogs-2022-0128

Accurate computation of geoid-quasigeoid separation in mountainous region – A case study in Colorado with full extension to the experimental geoid region

2023· article· en· W4365935267 on OpenAlexaff
Yan Ming Wang, M. Véronneau, Jianliang Huang, Kevin Ahlgren, Jordan Krcmaric, Xiaopeng Li, David Ávalos-Naranjo

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geodetic Science · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeophysics and Gravity Measurements
Canadian institutionsGeological Survey of CanadaNatural Resources Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeoidGeodesyUndulation of the geoidBouguer anomalyGeologyGravity anomalyElevation (ballistics)LongitudeLatitudeFree-air gravity anomalyVertical deflectionGeometryGeophysicsPhysicsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The geoid-quasigeoid separation (GQS) traditionally uses the Bouguer anomalies to approximate the difference between the mean gravity and normal gravity along the plumb line. This approximation is adequate in flat and low elevation areas, but not in high and rugged mountains. To increase the accuracy, higher order terms of the corrections (potential and gravity gradient) to the approximation were computed in Colorado where the 1 cm geoid computation experiment was conducted. Over an area of 730 km by 560 km where the elevation ranges between 932 and 4,385 m, the potential correction (Pot. Corr.) reaches −0.190 m and its root mean square (RMS) is 0.019 m. The gravity gradient correction is small but has high variation: the RMS of the correction is merely 0.003 m but varies from −0.025 to 0.020 m. In addition, the difference between the Bouguer gravity anomaly and gravity disturbance causes about a 0.01 m bias and a maximum correction of 0.02 m. The total corrections range from −0.135 to 0.180 m, with an RMS value of 0.019 m for the region. The magnitude of the corrections is large enough and is not negligible considering today’s cm-geoid requirement. After the test in Colorado, the complete GQS term is computed in 1′ × 1′ grids for the experimental geoid 2020 (xGEOID20), which covers a region bordered by latitude 0–85° north, longitude 180–350° east. Over the land areas, the RMS of the GQS is 0.119 m and the maximum reaches 1.3 m. The RMS of the GQS increases with respect to the height until 4,000 m, then decreases unexpectedly. At the highest peaks (5,500–6,000 m) of Denali and Mount Logan, the RMS of the GQS ranges between 0.08 and 0.189 m. The small GQS at these high peaks are caused by steep slopes around the peaks that produce large Pot. Corr. caused by the topography. In addition, the higher order correction terms reach half of a meter in those peaks.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.314
Threshold uncertainty score0.625

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations5
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geodetic ScienceSame topicGeophysics and Gravity MeasurementsFrench-language works237,207