MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2320527016 · doi:10.1109/jproc.2016.2529600

Overview of Spatial Processing Approaches for GNSS Structural Interference Detection and Mitigation

2016· article· en· W2320527016 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the IEEE · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicIndoor and Outdoor Localization Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpoofing attackGNSS applicationsComputer scienceInterference (communication)Real-time computingSignal processingAuthentication (law)Synchronization (alternating current)Global Positioning SystemComputer securityTelecommunicationsChannel (broadcasting)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

GNSS-dependent positioning, navigation, and timing synchronization procedures have a significant impact on everyday life. Thus, such an extensively used system progressively become an attractive target for illegal exploitation and attacks. Position and timing solutions provided by GNSS receivers can be threatened by structural interference such as spoofing threats. This paper provides an overview of recent research work on GNSS signal authentication utilizing spatial processing methods. Different spatial processing approaches for spoofing detection, classification and mitigation are characterized and compared. Three different processing methods, namely antenna array processing, moving receiver and cloud based spoofing countermeasure are analyzed in details. The benefits and disadvantages of each are discussed.

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 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 score0.354
Threshold uncertainty score0.154

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.197 · 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