Using Inertial Sensors in Smartphones for Curriculum Experiments of Inertial Navigation Technology
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Inertial technology has been used in a wide range of applications such as guidance, navigation, and motion tracking. However, there are few undergraduate courses that focus on the inertial technology. Traditional inertial navigation systems (INS) and relevant testing facilities are expensive and complicated in operation, which makes it inconvenient and risky to perform teaching experiments with such systems. To solve this issue, this paper proposes the idea of using smartphones, which are ubiquitous and commonly contain off-the-shelf inertial sensors, as the experimental devices. A series of curriculum experiments are designed, including the Allan variance test, the calibration test, the initial leveling test and the drift feature test. These experiments are well-selected and can be implemented simply with the smartphones and without any other specialized tools. The curriculum syllabus was designed and tentatively carried out on 14 undergraduate students with a science and engineering background. Feedback from the students show that the curriculum can help them gain a comprehensive understanding of the inertial technology such as calibration and modeling of the sensor errors, determination of the device attitude and accumulation of the sensor errors in the navigation algorithm. The use of inertial sensors in smartphones provides the students the first-hand experiences and intuitive feelings about the function of inertial sensors. Moreover, it can motivate students to utilize ubiquitous low-cost sensors in their future research.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it