Civilian Vehicle Navigation: Required Alignment of the Inertial Sensors for Acceptable Navigation Accuracies
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A vital necessity for any kind of inertial navigation system (INS) is the alignment of its axis with the vehicle body frame (VBF). Civilian vehicle navigation has strict requirements with respect to cost, size, reliability, and ease of implementation of the system. Microelectromechanical system (MEMS) inertial sensors have satisfied the cost and size requirements for civilian vehicle navigation; however, reliability and ease of implementation of these low-cost and miniaturized navigation systems are still parts of major research and investigation. This paper focuses on an important aspect of the ease of implementation for inertial sensors. From a civilian user perspective, accurately aligning the inertial system with respect to the vehicle, before every use, is not a desirable quality for a portable navigation system. In addition, it is not realistic to assume that even a careful user can achieve good alignment accuracy of the system. The purpose of this paper is to investigate the effects of misalignment errors that will produce errors in initial alignment and affect the navigation accuracy for two different inertial systems. The inertial systems are classified according to the number of sensors used in the system. The first system consists of three gyros and three accelerometers [full inertial measurement unit (IMU)], whereas the second system only has one gyro and two horizontal accelerometers (partial IMU).
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it