MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392753962 · doi:10.5194/egusphere-egu24-13398

Estimating Euler pole parameters for NATRF2022

2024· preprint· en· W4392753962 on OpenAlexaffabout
M. Craymer

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNuclear reactor physics and engineering
Canadian institutionsGeological Survey of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEuler's formulaControl theory (sociology)MathematicsComputer scienceApplied mathematicsMathematical analysisArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Canada and the US are collaboratively implementing a new dynamic, geometric reference frame for North America (NA) known as the North American Terrestrial Reference Frame of 2022 (NATRF2022). It will be a plate-fixed reference frame based on ITRF2020/IGS20 that is kept aligned to the NA tectonic plate using an Euler pole rotation. We have estimated Euler pole parameters (EPP) for NA based on the spherical model of Earth using different sets of stations and compared our results to other sources, including those recently obtained by Kreemer (2023) under contract to the U.S. National Geodetic Survey. The velocity field used for our analyses are those from Kreemer (2023) that were obtained for 4274 stations using GipsyX precise point positioning in the IGb14 reference frame and corrected for non-tidal and atmospheric loading as well as hydrological loading obtained from GRACE. A challenge for our analyses is the impact of ongoing glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA) on the horizontal velocities which can bias the EPP estimation. To mitigate such biases, we have used the horizontal component of the ICE-6G model to remove the GIA effect from the velocity field. Following Kreemer (2023),  we have determined a small set of homogeneously distributed stations that closely reproduce Kreemer’s EPP estimates. We also considered that users of the new reference frame would prefer that the intra-plate motions be minimized across the entire continent for conventional use and have therefore computed the best fitting EPP that minimizes the overall intra-plate motions across the entire continent.  In addition, we chose only good stations that met certain statistical criteria for the residuals and had stable monumentation, preferably anchored to bedrock. Finally, we compare the EPP estimates for all these sets of stations with and without GIA removed using statistical tests and descriptive statistics. The differences in resulting intra-plate velocities across the continent are also discussed for each test.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.595
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.214 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNuclear reactor physics and engineeringFrench-language works237,207