MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4366503898 · doi:10.1007/1345_2023_190

Spatio-Spectral Assessment of Some Isotropic Polynomial Covariance Functions on the Sphere

2023· book-chapter· en· W4366503898 on OpenAlexaff
Dimitrios Piretzidis, C. Kotsakis, Stelios P. Mertikas, Michael G. Sideris

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Association of Geodesy symposia · 2023
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeophysics and Gravity Measurements
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersEuropean CommissionEuropean Space Agency
KeywordsCovarianceCovariance functionMathematicsIsotropyCurvatureCollocation (remote sensing)PolynomialRational quadratic covariance functionApplied mathematicsMatérn covariance functionFunction (biology)Mathematical analysisGeometryPhysicsStatisticsCovariance intersectionComputer scienceOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In gravity field modeling, covariance functions are mainly associated with least squares collocation. Prior to the implementation of least squares collocation, the characteristics of the selected analytical covariance function need to be well understood. In this contribution, we study four polynomial covariance functions, i.e., the spherical, Askey, $$C^{2}$$ C 2 -Wendland and $$C^{4}$$ C 4 -Wendland models. All of them are defined on the sphere and correspond to isotropic, positive definite and compactly supported functions. We examine them in the spatial and spectral domains, and assess their characteristics, such as the correlation length, the curvature parameter, the spectral maximum and the spectral decay rate. We also provide analytical expressions and numerical estimates for these parameters.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.209 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Association of Geodesy symposiaSame topicGeophysics and Gravity MeasurementsFrench-language works237,207