English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Since 2006, several different groups have computed geoid and/or quasigeoid (quasi/geoid) models for the Auvergne test area in central France using various approaches. In this contribution, we compute and compare quasigeoid models for Auvergne using Curtin University of Technology’s and the Swedish Royal Institute of Technology’s approaches. These approaches differ in many ways, such as their treatment of the input data, choice of type of spherical harmonic model (combined or satellite-only), form and sequence of correction terms applied, and different modified Stokes’s kernels (deterministic or stochastic). We have also compared our results with most of the previously reported studies over Auvergne in order to seek any improvements with respect to time [exceptions are when different subsets of data have been used]. All studies considered here compare the computed quasigeoid models with the same 75 GPS-levelling heights over Auvergne. The standard deviation for almost all of the computations (without any fitting) is of the order of 30–40 mm, so there is not yet any clear indication whether any approach is necessarily better than any other nor improving over time. We also recommend more standardisation on the presentation of quasi/geoid comparisons with GPS-levelling data so that results from different approaches over the same areas can be compared more objectively.

Empirical comparison between stochastic and deterministic modifiers over the French Auvergne geoid computation test-bed