MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2914760273 · doi:10.1017/s0373463318001054

Galileo E5 Signal Acquisition using Intermediate Coherent Integration Time

2019· article· en· W2914760273 on OpenAlexaff
Jérôme Leclère, René Landry

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Navigation · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGNSS positioning and interference
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGalileo (satellite navigation)Code (set theory)AutocorrelationSIGNAL (programming language)GNSS applicationsGlobal Positioning SystemComputer scienceAlgorithmTime delay and integrationElectronic engineeringMathematicsStatisticsTelecommunicationsEngineeringRemote sensingGeographyComputer vision

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The acquisition of modern Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) signals may be difficult due to the presence of a secondary code. Indeed, short coherent integration times should be used without non-coherent integration, which implies a low sensitivity; or long coherent integration times should be used, requiring synchronisation with the secondary code and thus a full correlation, which implies a significant computational burden, especially for signals with long secondary codes such as the Galileo E5 signal. A third option that lies between the previous two is to perform a partial correlation using less than one secondary code period as input, however this is less efficient in terms of complexity than using an entire secondary code period, and the code's autocorrelation properties are completely changed. The authors recently proposed a method based on combining secondary code correlations, allowing the use of intermediate coherent integration times with the possibility to do non-coherent integrations, and the method was successfully applied to the Global Positioning System (GPS) L5 signal. This paper studies the application of the method to the Galileo E5 signal, compares it with the partial correlation method, and discusses the case where less than one secondary code period is used as an input

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.681
Threshold uncertainty score0.312

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.218 · 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

Citations3
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NavigationSame topicGNSS positioning and interferenceFrench-language works237,207