MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2080295323 · doi:10.1002/rob.20180

A Benchmark for Outdoor Vision SLAM Systems

2007· article· en· W2080295323 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Field Robotics · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRobotics and Sensor-Based Localization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersUniversity Research Board, American University of BeirutUniversity of Waterloo
KeywordsSimultaneous localization and mappingBenchmark (surveying)Artificial intelligenceComputer visionComputer scienceLandmarkDead reckoningInertial measurement unitRobotRobustness (evolution)Machine visionMobile robotGlobal Positioning SystemGeographyTelecommunicationsCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Simultaneous localization and mapping (SLAM) is a viable solution to autonomous robot navigation in outdoor settings when global positioning systems are unavailable or unreliable. While the traditional exteroceptive sensor for outdoor SLAM is a laser, cameras have also been proposed due to their low power consumption, low price, high bandwidth of information, and superior landmark segmentation capabilities. All outdoor Vision SLAM systems developed to date are implemented on different platforms, in different settings, using different dead‐reckoning sensors; a fact which makes it difficult to compare them and assess the state of the art of Vision SLAM. The contribution of this paper is in developing an infrastructure for a benchmark upon which past and future Vision SLAM system can be compared. This proposed benchmark is validated by testing its datasets on a Vision‐Inertial SLAM system. © 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.966
Threshold uncertainty score0.308

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.240 · 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