MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2622880273 · doi:10.4050/f-0072-2016-11469

Manoeuvre Recognition Using A Low-Cost Standalone MEMS-IMU System

2016· article· en· W2622880273 on OpenAlexaffabout
Catherine Cheung, Jobin Puthuparampil, Julio Valdés, Shashank Pant

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInertial Sensor and Navigation
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInertial measurement unitComputer scienceMicroelectromechanical systemsAccelerometerArtificial intelligenceEmbedded systemReal-time computingOperating systemMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper describes the use of a low-cost standalone MEMS-IMU (micro-electromechanical system - inertial measurement unit) sensor system developed by the National Research Council Canada (NRC) for manoeuvre recognition in helicopters. The system records accelerations, angular rotation rates, magnetic flux, altitude, location and velocity through its IMU and GPS. The MEMS-IMU system was flown on the Bell 206 helicopter operated by the NRC Flight Research Laboratory in two unscripted flight tests. Comparison of the system's measurements with those of the helicopter's inertial navigation system (INS) shows very good agreement, demonstrating that the system functions well in the intended environment and its measurements provide accurate and meaningful data. Data visualization of the flight test data mapped into a 3D virtual reality representation is presented to provide insight into the structure of the flight data. Manoeuvre recognition based on the sensor system's measurements was attempted using a data-driven classifier model. Even with different subsets of the MEMS-IMU measurements, the classifier results show that the parameters recorded by the system are sufficient for accurate manoeuvre classification.

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)0.000
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 score0.147
Threshold uncertainty score0.335

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.193 · 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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicInertial Sensor and NavigationFrench-language works237,207