The effect of stochastic gravity models in airborne vector gravimetry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Measurements of specific force using inertial measurement units (IMU) combined with Global Positioning System (GPS) accelerometry can be used on an airborne platform to determine the total gravitational vector. Traditional methods, originating with inertial surveying systems and based on Kalman filtering, rely on choosing an appropriate stochastic model for the gravity disturbance components included in the set of system error states. An alternative procedure that uses no a priori stochastic model has proven to be as effective, or moreso, in extracting the gravity vector from airborne IMU/GPS data. This method is based on inspecting acceleration residuals from a Kalman filter that estimates only sensor biases. Using actual data collected over the Canadian Rocky Mountains, this method was compared to the traditional approach adapted for different types of stochastic models for the gravity disturbance vector. In all test cases, the estimation filter without a gravitational model yielded better results—up to 50%. This implies that accurate gravity vector determination from airborne IMU/GPS need not rely on an a priori stochastic model of the field, even though the theory of optimal estimation requests it. However, no filter was able to remove all systematic errors from the data; these remaining errors could only be reduced by elementary methods such as endpoint matching and correlative processing of adjacent passes of the system over the gravity field. The final, best gravity estimates had standard deviations with respect to control data of 6 mGal in the horizontal components and 3–4 mGal in the vertical component.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".