An Algorithm for the In-Field Calibration of a MEMS IMU
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recently, micro electro-mechanical systems (MEMS) inertial sensors have found their way in various applications. These sensors are fairly low cost and easily available but their measurements are noisy and imprecise, which poses the necessity of calibration. In this paper, we present an approach to calibrate an inertial measurement unit (IMU) comprised of a low-cost tri-axial MEMS accelerometer and a gyroscope. As opposed to existing methods, our method is truly infield as it requires no external equipment and utilizes gravity signal as a stable reference. It only requires the sensor to be placed in approximate orientations, along with the application of simple rotations. This also offers easier and quicker calibration comparatively. We analyzed the method by performing experiments on two different IMUs: an in-house built IMU and a commercially calibrated IMU. We also calibrated the in-house built IMU using an aviation grade rate table for comparison. The results validate the calibration method as a useful low-cost IMU calibration scheme.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it