MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Propagation of an Unmodeled Additive Constant in Range Sensor Observations

2009· article· en· W1977992081 on OpenAlexafffund
Derek D. Lichti, Kyle O’Keefe, Sonam Jamtsho

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.

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)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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

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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations4
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Surveying EngineeringSame topicTarget Tracking and Data Fusion in Sensor NetworksFrench-language works237,207