MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2473169654

Real Time Precise Point Positioning: Are We There Yet?

2013· article· en· W2473169654 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Thomas Grinter, Craig Roberts

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHermeneutics and Narrative Identity
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrecise Point PositioningGNSS applicationsComputer scienceReal-time computingGlobal Positioning SystemTelecommunications
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The concept of Precise Point Positioning (PPP) using Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) technology was first introduced in 1976, however it took until the 1990s for PPP to generate interest amongst the greater GNSS community. Over the last two decades, dual-frequency PPP has been extensively researched, culminating in the availability of PPP post-processed correction products from organisations such as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), the International GNSS Service (IGS) and Natural Resources Canada (NRCan). With the advent of cost-effective, accurate, Real-Time Kinematic (RTK) positioning provided by an increasing number of Continuously Operating Reference Station (CORS) networks around the world, the focus of PPP has shifted to real-time or near real-time solutions. A real-time or near real-time PPP solution would potentially allow for a viable alternative to RTK solutions in some circumstances. However, several limitations still remain, primarily the long convergence times needed to resolve ambiguities, currently restricting the use of PPP for real-time applications. This paper provides a brief history of the development of real-time PPP and reviews the recent advances made in PPP with an emphasis on the development of a real-time or near real-time PPP solution.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.061

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.018
Scholarly communication0.0120.031
Open science0.0020.007
Research integrity0.0050.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.008

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.202 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHermeneutics and Narrative IdentityFrench-language works237,207