POST-MISSION QUALITY ASSURANCE PROCEDURE FOR SURVEY-GRADE MOBILE MAPPING SYSTEMS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Mobile Mapping Systems (MMS) consist of terrestrial-based moving platforms that integrate a set of imaging sensors (typically digital cameras and laser scanners) and a Position and Orientation System (POS), designed to collect data of the surrounding environment. MMS can be classified as “mapping-grade” or “survey-grade” depending on the system’s attainable accuracy. Mapping-grade MMS produce geospatial data suitable for GIS applications (e.g., asset management) while survey-grade systems should satisfy high-accuracy applications such as engineering/design projects. The delivered accuracy of an MMS is dependent on several factors such as the accuracy of the system measurements and calibration parameters. It is critical, especially for survey-grade systems, to implement a robust Quality Assurance (QA) procedure to ensure the achievement of the expected accuracy. In this paper, a new post-mission QA procedure is presented. The presented method consists of a fully-automated self-calibration process that allows for the estimation of corrections to the system calibration parameters (e.g., boresight angles and lever-arm offsets relating the lidar sensor(s) to the IMU body frame) as well as corrections to the system measurements (e.g., post-processed trajectory position and orientation, scan angles and ranges). As for the system measurements, the major challenge for MMS is related to the trajectory determination in the presence of multipath signals and GNSS outages caused by buildings, underpasses and high vegetation. In the proposed self-calibration method, trajectory position errors are properly modelled while utilizing an efficient/meaningful trajectory segmentation technique. The validity of the proposed method is demonstrated using a dataset collected under unfavorable GNSS conditions.
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 | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".