MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2920983613 · doi:10.1109/tim.2019.2899535

A Multisignal Wavelet Variance-Based Framework for Inertial Sensor Stochastic Error Modeling

2019· article· en· W2920983613 on OpenAlexaff
Ahmed Radi, Gaetan Bakalli, Stéphane Guerrier, Naser El‐Sheimy, A.B. Sesay, Roberto Molinari

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Health Monitoring Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersInstitute of Management Research, College of Business Administration Seoul National University
KeywordsCalibrationComputer scienceWaveletInertial measurement unitVariance (accounting)Inertial navigation systemAccelerometerInertial frame of referenceAlgorithmControl engineeringReal-time computingEngineeringMathematicsArtificial intelligenceStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The calibration of low-cost inertial sensors has become increasingly important over the last couple of decades, especially when dealing with sensor stochastic errors. This procedure is commonly performed on a single error measurement from an inertial sensor taken over a certain amount of time, although it is extremely frequent for different replicates to be taken for the same sensor, thereby delivering important information which is often left unused. In order to address the latter problem, this paper presents a general wavelet variance-based framework for multisignal inertial sensor calibration, which can improve the modeling and model selection procedures of sensor stochastic errors using all replicates from a calibration procedure and allows to understand the properties, such as stationarity, of these stochastic errors. The applications using microelectromechanical system inertial measurement units confirm the importance of this new framework, and a new graphical user interface makes these tools available to the general user. The latter is developed based on an R package called mgmwm and allows the user to select a type of sensor for which different replicates are available and to easily make use of the approaches presented in this paper in order to carry out the appropriate calibration procedure.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations25
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and MeasurementSame topicStructural Health Monitoring TechniquesFrench-language works237,207