MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2112754078 · doi:10.1017/s0373463307004250

Assessment of Several Interpolation Methods for Precise GPS Orbit

2007· article· en· W2112754078 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 · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGNSS positioning and interference
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEphemerisGNSS applicationsGlobal Positioning SystemPrecise Point PositioningGeodesyInterpolation (computer graphics)Orbit (dynamics)Computer scienceSpline interpolationOrbital elementsAlgorithmBilinear interpolationGeographySatelliteComputer visionPhysicsAerospace engineeringEngineeringAstronomyTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

GPS applications such as Precise Point Positioning (PPP) require the availability of precise ephemeris at high rate. To support these applications, several institutions such as the International GNSS Service (IGS) have developed precise orbital service. Unfortunately, however, the data rate of such precise orbits is usually limited to 15 minutes. To overcome this problem, a number of orbital interpolation methods are proposed. This paper examines the performance of four interpolation methods for IGS precise GPS orbits, namely Lagrange, Newton Divided Difference, Cubic Spline and Trigonometric interpolation. In addition, the paper discusses a new approach, which utilizes the residuals between the broadcast and precise ephemeris to generate a high density precise ephemeris. It is shown that the new approach produces better results than previously reported orbital interpolation accuracy.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.657
Threshold uncertainty score0.182

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.364 · 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