Terrain-aliasing effects on gravimetric geoid determination
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper investigates the terrain-aliasing effects on geoid determination using different gravimetric reduction schemes. The high resolution of digital terrain model (DTM), if available, should be used for every gravimetric reduction scheme since it can precisely map the details of the terrain. The reduction methods used in this study are the Rudzki inversion method, Helmert’s second method of condensation, the residual terrain model (RTM) method, and the Pratt-Hayford (PH) topographic-isostatic reduction technique. The effect of using different DTM grid resolutions of 6, 15, 30, 45, 1' and 2' on gravity anomalies and absolute geoid undulations is studied for each of these reduction schemes. A rugged area in the Canadian Rockies bounded by latitude between 49oN and 54oN and longitude between 236oE and 246oE is selected to conduct numerical tests. Our results suggest that a DTM grid resolution of 6 or higher is required for precise geoid determination with an accuracy of a decimetre or higher for any gravimetric reduction method chosen to treat the topographical masses above the geoid in rugged areas. The most precise geoid models obtained in this test are the ones obtained using Rudzki, Helmert, and RTM methods with 6 DTM resolution.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.006 |
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".