MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2026619300 · doi:10.1109/ccece.2013.6567843

Extended Kalman filtering for pico-satellites attitude determination

2013· article· en· W2026619300 on OpenAlexafffund
Mohamed Nasri, Witold Kinsner

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInertial Sensor and Navigation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersElse Kröner-Fresenius-StiftungUniversity of Manitoba
KeywordsExtended Kalman filterQuaternionKalman filterParameterized complexityInvariant extended Kalman filterAttitude controlComputer scienceNormalization (sociology)AlgorithmMathematicsControl theory (sociology)Artificial intelligenceEngineeringAerospace engineeringGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The extended Kalman filter (EKF) algorithm has been applied widely in orbital guidance and navigations problems for miniand micro-satellites. This paper evaluates the performance and computational complexity of EKF for smaller satellites. The impact of some limitations, including low power and computing capabilities on the implementation of EKF in smaller satellites is also addressed. The filter formulation is based on a kinematics model propagated with three-axis rate integrating gyros, where the attitude is parameterized using quaternions. A multiplicative quaternion-error approach is used to define the attitude error, which ensures that quaternion normalization is maintained. The results indicate that the EKF is sensitive to initial conditions. Using TRIAD algorithm to determine initial conditions, the filter converges after 50 minutes with an average error of 1.5°, but may diverge for extreme cases. The time and space complexities of EKF have also been estimated to be O(n3) and O(n2), respectively.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.220 · 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
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

Citations4
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicInertial Sensor and NavigationFrench-language works237,207