MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2895670795 · doi:10.1080/01490419.2018.1478349

Multi-Beam Echo Sounders–INS Automatic Latency Calibration

2018· article· en· W2895670795 on OpenAlexaff
Rabine Keyetieu, Nicolas Seube, Vignyl Djine, Gaël Roué, Benoı̂t Clément, Pierre Bosser

Bibliographic record

VenueMarine Geodesy · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicUnderwater Acoustics Research
Canadian institutionsThe Interdisciplinary Centre for the Development of Ocean Mapping
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEcho soundingInertial measurement unitDepth soundingComputer scienceLatency (audio)CalibrationGeodesyReal-time computingRemote sensingGeologyComputer visionGeographyPhysicsCartographyTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents an automatic, rigorous, and robust method to determine a Multi-Beam Echo Sounder (MBES) and Inertial Measurement Unit/Inertial Navigation System (IMU/INS) latency calibration. The latency may be due to the IMU/INS itself, but also to the time-tagging configuration, which is generally left to the survey systems user. One survey strip over a flat seafloor is the required configuration of line for using this approach, called Multibeam IMU/INS Latency Automatic Calibration (MILAC), standing for MBES to IMU/INS Latency Automatic Calibration. The algorithm considers only data with maximum latency effects and integrates an automatic data selection for this purpose. The latency estimation procedure is based on an iterative Least Square adjustment method followed by a statistical analysis. Our process can deal with beam acoustic refraction caused by the speed of sound in sea water. The accuracy of MILAC is about 2 ms (millisecond) and its average precision of 0.15 ms. MILAC is able to determine the latency with an average resolution of 5 ms. However, the morphology of the survey line is restricted to smooth and regular seafloor and the survey platform should have a relatively high attitude rate.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.819
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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)0.0120.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.229 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
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

Citations4
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMarine GeodesySame topicUnderwater Acoustics ResearchFrench-language works237,207