MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2953529749 · doi:10.1145/3322241

Indoor Localization Improved by Spatial Context—A Survey

2019· review· en· W2953529749 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueACM Computing Surveys · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicIndoor and Outdoor Localization Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersChina Scholarship Council
KeywordsComputer scienceSpatial contextual awarenessContext (archaeology)DoorsComputer visionSpatial analysisArtificial intelligenceLocation-based serviceRemote sensingTelecommunicationsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Indoor localization is essential for healthcare, security, augmented reality gaming, and many other location-based services. There is currently a wealth of relevant literature on indoor localization. This article focuses on recent advances in indoor localization methods that use spatial context to improve the location estimation. Spatial context in the form of maps and spatial models have been used to improve the localization by constraining location estimates in the navigable parts of indoor environments. Landmarks such as doors and corners, which are also one form of spatial context, have proved useful in assisting indoor localization by correcting the localization error. This survey gives a comprehensive review of state-of-the-art indoor localization methods and localization improvement methods using maps, spatial models, and landmarks.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.986
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.246 · 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