On the Accurate Determination of the Orthometric Correction to Levelled Height Differences—A Case Study in Hong Kong
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Orthometric heights are practically determined from levelling and gravity measurements by applying orthometric corrections to levelled height differences. Currently, Helmert’s definition of orthometric heights is mostly used, with the mean gravity computed only approximately from observed surface gravity by applying the Poincaré–Prey gravity reduction. In this study, we apply the state-of-the-art method for the orthometric height determination and demonstrate its practical applicability. The method utilizes advanced numerical procedures to account for the topographic relief and mass density variations, while adopting the Earth’s spherical approximation. The non-topographic contribution of masses inside the geoid is evaluated by solving geodetic boundary-values problems. We apply this method for the first time to practically determine the orthometric heights of levelling benchmarks from levelling and gravity measurements and digital terrain and rock density models. The results obtained after the readjustment of newly determined orthometric heights at the levelling network covering Hong Kong territories are compared with Helmert’s orthometric heights. This comparison revealed that errors in Helmert’s orthometric heights vary between −3.13 and 0.95 cm. Such errors are very significant when compared to accurate values of the cumulative orthometric correction between −1.88 and 0.84 cm. Moreover, large errors (up to 1 cm) already occur at levelling benchmarks at very low elevations (<100 m). These findings demonstrate that the accurate determination of orthometric heights is crucial, even for regions with 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 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".