MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Propagation of an Unmodeled Additive Constant in Range Sensor Observations

2009· article· en· W1977992081 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Surveying Engineering · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTarget Tracking and Data Fusion in Sensor Networks
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsOffset (computer science)Range (aeronautics)Constant (computer programming)MathematicsSystematic errorLeast-squares function approximationCalibrationObservational errorAlgorithmComputer scienceStatisticsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The rangefinder offset, additive constant or zero error is the most basic systematic error affecting the accuracy range measurements. Recent investigations of different systems that feature range measurement have shown that minimally constrained self-calibration adjustments of observations corrupted by an unmodeled rangefinder offset yield near-linear patterns in the range-observation residuals. This paper explains the underlying mathematical cause of this phenomenon for the purpose of assisting systematic error model identification. As a result of the mathematical derivations a new improved (in terms of parameter correlation) method for estimating the rangefinder offset from the sum of residuals of a least-squares adjustment of biased range observations has been developed. The new method is successfully demonstrated on data collected with total stations and ultrawide band ranging radios over two one-dimensional baselines.

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.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.429
Threshold uncertainty score0.307

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.210 · 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