MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Benefits of Using a Tactical-Grade IMU for High-Accuracy Positioning

2004· article· en· W1971678483 on OpenAlexaff
Mark G. Petovello, M. Elizabeth Cannon, G. Lachapelle

Bibliographic record

VenueNAVIGATION Journal of the Institute of Navigation · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInertial Sensor and Navigation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInertial measurement unitGlobal Positioning SystemInertial navigation systemUnits of measurementInertial frame of referenceComputer scienceReliability (semiconductor)Process (computing)Position (finance)Real-time computingSimulationEngineeringArtificial intelligenceTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT: Integration of GPS with inertial sensors can provide many benefits for navigation, from improved accuracy to increased reliability. The extent of such benefits, however, is typically a function of the quality of the inertial system used. Traditionally, high-cost, navigation-grade inertial measurement units (IMUs) have been used to obtain the highest position and velocity accuracies. However, the work documented in this paper uses a Honeywell HG-1700 IMU (1 deg/h) to assess the benefits of a tactical-grade IMU in aiding GPS for high-accuracy (centimeter-level) applications. To this end, the position and velocity accuracy of the integrated system during complete and partial GPS data outages is investigated. The benefit of using inertial data to improve the ambiguity resolution process after such data outages is also addressed in detail. Centralized and decentralized filtering strategies are compared in terms of system performance.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.248 · 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

Citations67
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNAVIGATION Journal of the Institute of NavigationSame topicInertial Sensor and NavigationFrench-language works237,207