MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2062507865 · doi:10.1177/154193120504901102

Spatial Orientation Using Echolocation — Characterising Signals for Downconversion

2005· article· en· W2062507865 on OpenAlexaff
T. Claire Davies, Shane D. Pinder

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTactile and Sensory Interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHuman echolocationObstacleOrientation (vector space)AcousticsComputer scienceNoise (video)Frequency domainComputer visionGeographyPhysicsMathematicsImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Individuals with visual impairments sometimes use echolocation for spatial orientation and obstacle detection. An advantage to echolocation is the ability to determine the location of obstacles without physical contact. Echolocation has essentially become obsolete with the increase in environmental noise. If echolocation could be performed at ultrasound and downconverted directly to the auditory domain, visually impaired travellers may be better able to spatially orient. As a first step in this project, we needed to determine auditory signals that could have the potential to allow us to extract meaningful spatial information from the environment. To do this, we evaluated different possible clicks for obstacle detection, examined the ability to determine wall distance with low and high frequency sounds, and finally we used low and high frequency sounds to quantify feedback echoes as a spatial environment changes. This preliminary work showed that echoes that are carried on a higher frequency carrier can be downconverted to produce similar signals to those produced when echoed in the auditory domain directly.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual MeetingSame topicTactile and Sensory InteractionsFrench-language works237,207