MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2107874325 · doi:10.1017/s0373463315000077

Optimal Distance between Mobile Buoy and Target for Moving Long Baseline Positioning System

2015· article· en· W2107874325 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Navigation · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicUnderwater Vehicles and Communication Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBuoyMetric (unit)Position (finance)Baseline (sea)Computer scienceEngineeringMarine engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper investigates the problem of how to design the distance between a mobile buoy and the target to derive maximum positioning accuracy with a Moving Long Baseline (MLBL). To that end, the positioning model and the error sources of MLBL are derived, respectively. It is assumed that the position measurement of the mobile buoy and the distance measurement between the mobile buoy and the target are corrupted by white Gaussian noises, and the variance of the distance measurement is distance-dependent. Using tools from estimation theory, the Positioning Accuracy Metric (PAM) is designed with the distance error and the position errors are considered. Based on the PAM, the optimal distance between the mobile buoy and target is deduced when the mobile buoys are in optimal geometry. Simulation examples illustrate the results.

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)0.001
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.529
Threshold uncertainty score0.248

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.231 · 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