MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1505394098 · doi:10.1049/iet-rsn.2010.0249

Doppler measurement accuracy in standard and high-sensitivity global navigation satellite system receivers

2011· article· en· W1505394098 on OpenAlexaff
Daniele Borio, N. Sokolova, G. Lachapelle

Bibliographic record

VenueIET Radar Sonar & Navigation · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGNSS positioning and interference
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDoppler effectComputer scienceSensitivity (control systems)Global Positioning SystemSatelliteBlock (permutation group theory)Variance (accounting)Doppler frequencyNoise (video)Electronic engineeringRemote sensingTelecommunicationsMathematicsEngineeringPhysicsGeologyArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Doppler frequency estimates generated by a global navigation satellite system receiver are essential for the evaluation of the user velocity. In this study, a theoretical framework allowing the evaluation of Doppler measurement accuracy is introduced. The variance of Doppler estimates is related to the carrier-to-noise density power ratio (C/N0) and the type of processing adopted by the receiver. Both standard sequential and high-sensitivity receivers adopting block processing techniques are considered. A general formula quantifying the Doppler variance is derived and applied to these two receiver architectures. Moreover, the concept of Doppler bandwidth is introduced for quantifying the amount of input noise transferred to the final Doppler estimates. The generality of the theory is validated using live GPS data and a good agreement between theoretical and empirical results is found.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.195 · 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 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

Citations27
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIET Radar Sonar & NavigationSame topicGNSS positioning and interferenceFrench-language works237,207