MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2146047523 · doi:10.1115/1.4006364

Estimating the Angular Velocity From Body-Fixed Accelerometers

2012· article· en· W2146047523 on OpenAlexafffund
He Peng, Philippe Cardou

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Dynamic Systems Measurement and Control · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Health Monitoring Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersFonds Québécois de la Recherche sur la Nature et les Technologies
KeywordsAccelerometerAngular velocityGyroscopeWeightingAngular accelerationDisplacement (psychology)Angular displacementWork (physics)AccelerationPolynomialVariance (accounting)MathematicsPhysicsAcousticsGeodesyMathematical analysisClassical mechanicsGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a novel way of determining the angular velocity of a rigid body from accelerometer measurements. This method finds application in crashworthiness and motion analysis in sports, for example, where impacts forbid the use of mechanical gyroscopes. Based on previous work, the time-integration (TI) and polynomial-roots (PR) estimates of the angular velocity are first computed. The TI and PR estimates are then linearly combined through a weighted sum whose weighting factor is chosen so as to minimize the `variance of the resulting estimate. The proposed method is illustrated in an experiment, where the twelve accelerometer array (OCTA) is moved manually. A comparison of the angular-velocity estimates obtained from the proposed method and those obtained from a magnetic displacement sensor shows that the resulting estimates are robust and do not suffer from the drift problems that hinder the TI method. Moreover, comparison with a previously reported method indicates that the method proposed here is less sensitive to measurement errors, especially at low angular velocities.

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)0.001
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.223 · 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

Citations10
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Dynamic Systems Measurement and ControlSame topicStructural Health Monitoring TechniquesFrench-language works237,207