MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3091082210

3D surface mapping using a semi-autonomous rover: A planetary analog field experiment

2012· article· en· W3091082210 on OpenAlexaff
Rehman S. Merali, Chi Hay Tong, Jonathan D. Gammell, Joseph Nsasi Bakambu, Érick Dupuis, Tim Barfoot

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRobotics and Sensor-Based Localization
Canadian institutionsCanadian Space AgencyUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceTerrainMars Exploration ProgramMars roverArtificial intelligenceComputer visionOdometryTrajectoryRange (aeronautics)EmulationRemote sensingMobile robotGeologyRobotGeographyEngineeringAerospace engineeringCartography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper describes a proposed operational architecture for a planetary worksite mapping mission concept. To map three-dimensional (3D) planetary terrain, we pro-pose to use a rover equipped with a laser rangefinder, and employ a stop-scan-go approach with a human-in-the-loop. In the operational cycle, the rover collects locally consis-tent 3D range data while stationary. The range data are coupled with visual odometry to estimate the rover pose at each scan and create a consistent 3D map. The 3D map is then used to evaluate candidate next-best views (NBV). The operator selects a NBV with the aid of three evalu-ation criteria and the rover autonomously travels to the NBV using a network of reusable paths (NRP). Finally, the rover collects another 3D scan and the cycle repeats. This mission concept was validated through hardware ex-periments on the CSA’s Mars Emulation Terrain (MET), which measures 60m × 120m and includes inclines, rocks, cliffs and a 5.5m-diameter crater.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.199 · 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 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

Citations4
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRobotics and Sensor-Based LocalizationFrench-language works237,207