Assessment of WAAS Correction Data in Eastern Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As part of the research being carried out at the University of New Brunswick on assessment of the Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS), we are evaluating the availability and accuracy of the WAAS correction data, including the ionospheric grid model and its operational implementation for users in eastern Canada. We run a continuously operating GPS receiver with WAAS capability. All data from the receiver including raw pseudorange and carrier-phase measurements at a 1 Hz rate and all WAAS messages are archived in daily files. Each day, the WAAS ionospheric grid delay (IGD) values and the corresponding grid ionospheric vertical error (GIVE) values are extracted from the archive file to generate IGD and GIVE values at each ionospheric grid node superimposed on a coverage map of eastern North America. The overall accuracy of the WAAS correction data is assessed by computing a user position solution and comparing the result with the corresponding surveyed receiver antenna location. In addition, the GPS orbit corrections are directly assessed through comparisons with the precise ephemerides of the International GPS Service. Using WAAS correction data, we have computed the position accuracy of the single-frequency user as approximately 2 metres twice distance r.m.s. in eastern Canada on the periphery of the current WAAS coverage area. The ionospheric grid model is being assessed over the range of solar activity intensities and involves comparison between the model and appropriate dual-frequency GPS data from permanent tracking stations, which constitutes an ionospheric “truth ” system. This work will complement ongoing WAAS-related ionospheric research in Canada and will permit us to recommend, for example, the number and locations of reference stations for the future Canadian Wide Area Augmentation System.
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 | 0.000 | 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 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".