Investigations into the quality of final-product dual-frequency kinematic PPP in open sky using CSRS-PPP free online service: GPS Vs. GPS + GLONASS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Global Positioning System (GPS) provides accurate, continuous, and global positioning and timing information through satellite-based observations. However, single-system configurations are limited by satellite geometry and signal availability, which can affect positioning reliability in dynamic environments. This study evaluates the performance of Kinematic Precise Point Positioning (PPP) using the Canadian Spatial Reference System Precise Point Positioning (CSRS-PPP) service under two configurations: GPS-only and GPS combined with GLONASS in open sky where the effect of multipath is non-existent. Dual-frequency observations were collected on 10 well-distributed fixed points for 24 hours each and processed in both static and kinematic modes. The static PPP results were used as the reference to assess the accuracy of kinematic solutions. The results show that integrating GLONASS with GPS improves in average the consistency and reliability of GPS alone kinematic PPP solutions by nearly 13% in Easting, 15% in Northing, and 21% in Height. Also, the integrated solutions help to reduce the percentage of gross errors in GPS alone kinematic PPP solutions and enhancing positional precision by nearly 15% in Easting, 21% in Northing, and 18% in Height. Although the improvement in overall average accuracy is marginal, the overall stability of the solution demonstrates the advantage of multi-constellation PPP processing.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".