MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3137833708 · doi:10.1504/ijasse.2021.10036566

Rotation vector and directional cosine matrix in problems of satellite attitude control

2021· article· en· W3137833708 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

VenueInternational Journal of Aerospace System Science and Engineering · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAerospace Engineering and Control Systems
Canadian institutionsCanadian Space Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTrigonometric functionsRotation matrixSatelliteMatrix (chemical analysis)Rotation (mathematics)Direction cosineMathematicsAttitude controlControl (management)Computer scienceArtificial intelligencePhysicsEngineeringAstronomyGeometryControl engineeringMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For many years, three rotation angles of moving vehicles: roll, pitch, and yaw have been used for attitude determination and control. However, in the last years due to appearance of new airspace applications such as strapdown inertial navigation systems (INS) and spacecrafts new quaternion (Q)-based methods appeared. Conventional and new modern methods have some features that can attract or repel developers. Nevertheless, some new techniques of classical mechanics can be tried to use them for vehicle attitude determination and control purposes with the expectation to get more effective results. The article presents a rotation vector (RV) and proposes a way of using it for satellite attitude control. This method is compared with conventional method of attitude control using three rotation angles. The ratio is shown between RV control and modern method of satellite attitude control using quaternion. Analytical and simulation results are presented.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.422
Threshold uncertainty score0.474

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.198 · 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