MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388695348 · doi:10.1007/s00190-023-01797-z

Spherical harmonic coefficients of isotropic polynomial functions with applications to gravity field modeling

2023· article· en· W4388695348 on OpenAlexaff
Dimitrios Piretzidis, C. Kotsakis, Stelios P. Mertikas, Michael G. Sideris

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geodesy · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeophysics and Gravity Measurements
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersEuropean CommissionEuropean Space Agency
KeywordsSpherical harmonicsMathematicsGeopotentialPolynomialGravitational fieldMathematical analysisIsotropyZonal spherical harmonicsPiecewiseField (mathematics)Applied mathematicsHarmonicCovarianceVector spherical harmonicsPure mathematicsPhysicsClassical mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Various aspects of gravity field modeling rely upon analytical mathematical functions for calculating spherical harmonic coefficients. Such functions allow quick and efficient evaluation of cumbersome convolution integrals defined on the sphere. In this work, we present a new analytical method for determining spherical harmonic coefficients of isotropic polynomial functions. This method in computationally flexible and efficient, since it makes use of recurrence relations. Also, its use is universal and could be extended to piecewise polynomials and polynomials with compact support. Our numerical investigation of the proposed method shows that certain recurrence relations lose accuracy as the order of implemented polynomials increases because of accumulation of numerical errors. Propagation of these errors could be mitigated by hybrid methods or using extended precision arithmetic. We demonstrate the relevance of our method in gravity field modeling and discuss two areas of application. The first one is the design of B-spline windows and filter kernels for the low-pass filtering of gravity field functionals (e.g., GRACE Follow-On monthly geopotential solutions). The second one is the calculation of spherical harmonic coefficients of isotropic polynomial covariance functions.

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.215 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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