MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1494956565 · doi:10.1109/i2mtc.2015.7151272

Adaptive drift calibration of accelerometers with direct velocity measurements

2015· article· en· W1494956565 on OpenAlexaff
Mike Rockwood, Bruce Wallace, Rafik Goubran, Frank Knoefel, Shawn Marshall

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInertial Sensor and Navigation
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of OttawaBruyèreCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAccelerometerCalibrationNoise (video)Computer scienceGlobal Positioning SystemSIGNAL (programming language)Sampling (signal processing)Position (finance)AcousticsControl theory (sociology)Artificial intelligencePhysicsComputer visionTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The accelerometer has become one of the most popular sensors in recent years due to its low cost and the widespread availability of smart phones that now contain three axis accelerometers. This paper proposes an adaptive drift calibration technique for accelerometer signals, correcting higher sampling rate accelerometers using lower sampling rate velocity and position measurements. Specifically, this study made use of 40Hz sampled accelerometer signals captured by smart phones, and corrected them using two different 1Hz sampled velocity reference signals: a vehicle speed sensor and velocity from a Global Positioning System position sensor. The paper compares the performance of two error correction algorithms based on step and ramp shaped error correction delta functions. The ramp function was found to be susceptible to oscillation caused by high frequency noise, while the step function remains stable. The paper also shows that the GPS velocity signal has better performance over the dashboard vehicle velocity signal due to the higher frequency noise within the direct velocity signal.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.580
Threshold uncertainty score0.178

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.164 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations3
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicInertial Sensor and NavigationFrench-language works237,207