Accuracy assessment of high and ultra high-resolution combined GGMs, and recent satellite-only GGMs – Case studies of Poland and Ethiopia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The launch of dedicated satellite gravity missions (CHAMP, GRACE, GOCE, and GRACE–FO), as well as the availability of gravity data from satellite altimetry and terrestrial/airborne gravity measurements have led to a growing number of Global Geopotential Models (GGMs) developed. Thus, the evaluation of GGMs is necessary to ensure their accuracy in recovering the Earth’s gravity field on local, regional, and global scales. The main objective of this research is to assess the accuracy of recent GGMs over Poland in Central Europe and Ethiopia in East Africa. Combined GGMs of high (degree and order (d/o) 2190) and ultra high-resolution (d/o 5540) as well as five satellite-only GGMs were evaluated using gravity data from absolute gravity measurements and airborne gravity surveys over Poland and Ethiopia, respectively. Based on this evaluation, the estimated accuracy of the high-resolution combined GGM is at the level of 2 mGal. The estimated accuracy for the ultra-high-resolution combined GGM is ~2.5 times lower. The satellite-only GGMs investigated recover the gravity signal at an accuracy level of 10 mGal and 26 mGal, for the areas of Poland and Ethiopia, respectively. When compensating for the omitted gravity signal using a high-resolution combined GGM and the topography model, an accuracy of 2 mGal can be achieved.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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".