MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2151958794 · doi:10.3390/s150203154

Research on Initial Alignment and Self-Calibration of Rotary Strapdown Inertial Navigation Systems

2015· article· en· W2151958794 on OpenAlexaff
Wei Gao, Ya Zhang, Jianguo Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueSensors · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInertial Sensor and Navigation
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsObservabilityInertial navigation systemPosition (finance)CalibrationControl theory (sociology)Inertial frame of referenceProcess (computing)Inertial measurement unitComputer scienceRotation (mathematics)EngineeringControl engineeringArtificial intelligenceMathematicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The errors of inertial sensors affect the navigation accuracy of the strapdown inertial navigation system (SINS) and are accumulated over time in nature. In order to continuously maintain the high navigation accuracy of vehicles for a long time period, an initial alignment and self-calibration is necessary after the SINS starts. Additionally, the observability analysis is one of the key techniques during the initial alignment and self-calibration process. For marine systems, the observability of inertial sensor errors is extremely low, as their motion states are always slow. Therefore, studying the rotating SINS is urgent. Since traditional analysis methods have their limitations, the global observation analysis method was used in this paper. On the basis of this method, the relationship between the observability and the kinestate of the rotating SINS has been established. After the discussion about the factors that affect the observability in detail, the design principle of the initial alignment and self-calibration rotating scheme, which is appropriate for marine systems, id proposed. With the proposed principle, a novel initial alignment and self-calibration method, named the eight-position rotating scheme, is designed. Simulations and experiments are carried out to verify its performance. The results have shown that compared with other rotating schemes and the static state, the estimated accuracy of the eight-position scheme rotating about axes x and y was the best, and the position error was significantly reduced with this new rotating scheme. The feasibility and effectiveness of the proposed design principle and the rotating scheme were verified.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.263 · 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

Citations70
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSensorsSame topicInertial Sensor and NavigationFrench-language works237,207