Precise Point Positioning using Multi-Constellation GNSS Observations for Kinematic Applications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Traditional precise point positioning (PPP) is commonly based on un-differenced ionosphere-free linear combination of Global Positioning System (GPS) observations. Unfortunately, for kinematic applications, GPS often experiences poor satellite visibility or weak satellite geometry in urban areas. To overcome this limitation, we developed a PPP model, which combines the observations of three global navigation satellite systems (GNSS), namely GPS, GLONASS and Galileo. Both un-differenced and between-satellite single-difference (BSSD) ionosphere-free linear combinations of pseudorange and carrier phase GNSS measurements are processed. The performance of the combined GNSS PPP solution is compared with the GPS-only PPP solution using a real test scenario in downtown Kingston, Ontario. Inter-system biases between GPS and the other two systems are also studied and obtained as a byproduct of the PPP solution. It is shown that the addition of GLONASS observations improves the kinematic PPP solution accuracy in comparison with that of GPS-only solution. However, the contribution of adding Galileo observations is not significant due to the limited number of Galileo satellites launched up to date. In addition, BSSD solution is found to be superior to that of traditional un-differenced model.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".