A conversion of the geoid to the quasigeoid at the Hong Kong territories
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A levelling network was readjusted and a new geoid model compiled within the framework of geodetic vertical datum modernization at the Hong Kong territories. To accomplish all project objectives, the quasigeoid model has to be determined too. A quasigeoid model can be obtained from existing geoid model by applying the geoid-to-quasigeoid separation. The geoid-to-quasigeoid separation was traditionally computed as a function of the simple planar Bouguer gravity anomaly, while disregarding terrain geometry, topographic density variations, and vertical gravity changes due to mass density heterogeneities below the geoid surface. We applied this approximate method because orthometric heights of levelling benchmarks in Hong Kong were determined only approximately according to Helmert’s theory of orthometric heights. Considering a further improvement of the accuracy of orthometric heights by applying advanced numerical procedures, we determined the geoid-to-quasigeoid separation by applying an accurate method. The comparison of the accurately and approximately computed values of the geoid-to-quasigeoid separation revealed significant differences between them. The approximate values are all negative and reach -2.8 cm, whereas values from the accurate method vary between -4.1 and + 0.2 cm. In addition, we assessed the effect of anomalous topographic density on the geoid-to-quasigeoid separation by employing a newly developed digital rock density model. According to our estimates the effect of anomalous topographic density reaches a maximum value of 1.6 cm, reflecting a predominant presence of light volcanic rocks and sedimentary deposits at the Hong Kong territories. Our numerical findings indicate that the conversion between geoid and quasigeoid models should be done accurately, even in regions with a moderately elevated topography.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".