Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The determination of the shape of the Earth has been one of the fundamental problems geodesy was supposed to solve; it has been and possibly still is the main geodetic problem. It is thus appropriate for geodesists to look at this problem periodically, and this is what the authors of this paper aim to do. About 50 years ago, geodesists started using satellites as a new and very powerful tool. Many problems that were either impossible to solve or that presented almost unsurmountable hurdles to solutions have now been solved relatively simply, so much so that in the eyes of some people, satellites can solve all geodetic problems, and attempts are being made to show that this is indeed the case. We feel that the time has come to show that even satellites have their limitations, the main one being that for them to remain in their orbit, they must fly quite high, typically at several hundred kilometres. The gravitational field of the Earth (and that of any celestial body) smoother as one gets higher and higher. In other words, the gravitational field at the satellite orbit altitude loses detailed information that one can see at the surface of the Earth. In this contribution, we shall try to explain what satellites have contributed to the study of the shape of the Earth and what issues remain to be sorted out.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 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 it