MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6989481051

Assessment of the GOCE-based Global Models in Canada

2012· article· en· W6989481051 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenuePublication Database GFZ (GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences) · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeophysics and Gravity Measurements
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeoidGeopotentialUndulation of the geoidSatelliteAltimeterSpherical harmonics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of this study is to test the first, second and third generation GOCE geoid solutions, obtained from the first 2, 8 and 18-month observations, respectively. These solutions are assessed over Canada and for two sub-regions (the Great Lakes and Rocky Mountains). The Canadian GPS/leveling-derived geoid heights are used as independent control values in the assessment of the GOCE geoid models. The study is conducted in two steps. First, the geoid models are computed from satellite-only models and truncated to different spherical harmonic degrees. These models are compared with the GPS/leveling geoid heights which are reduced to the same spectral band as the satellite models by EGM2008 predicted frequency components higher than the truncation degrees. The results suggest that the GOCE models show a full power of signal up to about spherical harmonic degree 180. Moreover, the second and third generation GOCE models (with the exception of the direct approach models) provide better agreement with the GPS/leveling-derived geoid undulations than the first generation models due to the longer observation period. The second step involves the combination of the two third generation GOCE models with terrestrial data. These models are tested against to the GPS/leveling-derived geoid undulations in full spectrum. EGM2008 global geopotential model and Canadian gravimetric geoid model CGG2005 are also included in the comparisons to measure improvement provided by the GOCE models. The GOCE-combined models yielded GPS/leveling results that are comparable with those obtained from EGM2008 and CGG2005 models. The best comparative results with the combined models give standard deviations of 4.8 cm, 6.0 cm and 12.2 cm for the Great Lakes, Rocky Mountains and Canada, respectively. These results indicate that the third generation GOCE models conform to the Canadian terrestrial gravity data from degrees 90 to 180. The new generation models show evident improvement over the first and second generation models.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.098

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.071
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePublication Database GFZ (GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences)Same topicGeophysics and Gravity MeasurementsFrench-language works237,207