MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408433457 · doi:10.5194/egusphere-egu25-11277

Ground-GNSS ZTD trends for climate models

2025· preprint· en· W4408433457 on OpenAlexaff
Marcelo C. Santos, R. Pacione, Kyriakos Balidakis, Sharyl Byrant, Galina Dick, R. Elfyn Hughes, Jonathan Jones, Hannes Keernik, Anna Kłos, Yidong Lou, Haroldo Antonio Marques, Samuel Nahmani, Thalia Nikolaidou, Kalev Rannat, Raúl Valenzuela, Yibin Yao, Peng Yuan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSoil Moisture and Remote Sensing
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources CanadaUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGNSS applicationsEnvironmental scienceMeteorologyClimatologyRemote sensingAtmospheric sciencesGlobal Positioning SystemGeographyGeologyComputer scienceTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

GNSS Zenith Total Delay (ZTD) estimates are quantities of great interest by climate modellers since atmospheric water vapour is the major greenhouse gas. Therefore, the importance of its accurate, long-term monitoring and evaluation of trends and variability, potentially serving as independent benchmarks to climatological models, both on longer trends derived from GNSS, but also shorter trends, which could be used for assimilation and validation of climate models. ZTD estimates are determined on a regular basis by several processing centers as well as by demand. It has also been demonstrated that series of ZTD estimates can be used for quality control purposes. At the same time, GNSS reached the “maturity age” of 30 years when climate normals of ZTD and gradients can be derived. But what would be the best ZTD series to serve the climate community? What series would offer the most realistic trends? This poster discusses an on-going investigation under the auspices of the International Association of Geodesy, through a joint working group nested within the Inter-Commission Committee on Geodesy for Climate Research. In a previous study, we made use of the ZTD series derived by the third reprocessing campaign (REPRO3), based on a variety of processing modes and models. But this study was partial as the ZTD times series estimated by the Analysis Centers were not covering the same periods. This time, ZTD time series are generated using dedicated PPP scientific software suites. The generated trends are to be compared and analysed.

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)0.003
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 score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.005

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.247 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSoil Moisture and Remote SensingFrench-language works237,207