MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2328028275

Evaluation of Data/Pilot Tracking Algorithms for GPS L2C Signals Using Software Receiver

2007· article· en· W2328028275 on OpenAlexaff
Kannan Muthuraman, Surendran K. Shanmugam, Gérard Lachapelle

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the 20th International Technical Meeting of the Satellite Division of The Institute of Navigation (ION GNSS 2007) · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGNSS positioning and interference
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiscriminatorChannel (broadcasting)Computer scienceGlobal Positioning SystemTracking (education)Context (archaeology)SIGNAL (programming language)Real-time computingElectronic engineeringAlgorithmTelecommunicationsEngineeringDetectorGeography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The current GPS constellation is being modernized to overcome the limitations of legacy GPS signals. L2C is the civilian signal added to L2 band as a part of modernization efforts. The major change in L2C signal structure is the inclusion of the pilot channel along with the data channel. In the context of tracking, the pilot channel carries the same information about frequency, phase and code errors. This information could be used along with that of the data channel for better tracking performance. This paper investigates the performance of Data/Pilot combined carrier-frequency tracking. A detailed analysis of existing methods to combine the frequency discriminators on data and pilot channel is done. Hybrid discriminators that make use of the data and pilot channel’s coherent integration output directly are proposed. Consequently, the performance of different possible combinations of the discriminators to form estimates of frequency error is analysed. They are evaluated under various ܥ/ ଴ levels. The advantages of using different discriminator combinations are demonstrated based on ܥ/ ଴.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.559

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.000
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 head0.107
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.243 · 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

Citations12
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the 20th International Technical Meeting of the Satellite Division of The Institute of Navigation (ION GNSS 2007)Same topicGNSS positioning and interferenceFrench-language works237,207