MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2199666664

Performance of Network RTK Using Fixed and Float Ambiguities

2000· article· en· W2199666664 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Anna B. O. Jensen, M. Elizabeth Cannon

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the 2000 National Technical Meeting of The Institute of Navigation · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGNSS positioning and interference
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFloat (project management)Global Positioning SystemDifferential GPSPrecise Point PositioningComputer scienceReal Time KinematicDifferential (mechanical device)Real-time computingInteger (computer science)KinematicsRemote sensingGNSS applicationsTelecommunicationsGeographyEngineeringMarine engineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Real time kinematic differential GPS positioning (RTK) at the cm–level is generally carried out using real time data from only one reference receiver. Current research activities have shown, however, that the performance of RTK positioning can be improved considerably over longer baselines if differential phase corrections are generated based on a network of reference stations. These analyses show positioning accuracies better than 10 cm. This level of accuracy has been obtained only when L1 phase ambiguities for the baselines between the stations in the reference network have been solved to fixed integer values. This paper focuses on the use of float ambiguities for the reference station vectors in the network. Float ambiguities are being investigated since it can be difficult to resolve the integer ambiguities efficiently and reliably in real time over a network with baseline lengths of typically 40 to 200 km. Based on GPS data from a number of reference stations the ambiguities for the baselines in the reference network are determined as both fixed and float values. Data from the reference stations are used along with either the fixed or float ambiguities to generate phase corrections by utilising a new method developed at the University of Calgary. Positioning of a user receiver is carried out employing the corrected phase data and conventional GPS positioning software. Various scenarios are evaluated whereby the ambiguities are solved to either fixed or float numbers, and using both single and dual frequency GPS data. The results are analysed emphasising on the positioning accuracy, and it is concluded that the accuracy over 24 hours is of about the same level if using fixed or float ambiguities. Finally the method is evaluated for eventual real time use.

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 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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.220
Threshold uncertainty score0.263

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations8
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the 2000 National Technical Meeting of The Institute of NavigationSame topicGNSS positioning and interferenceFrench-language works237,207