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 OpenAlexaff
Y.V. Kim

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.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.003
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

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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Aerospace System Science and EngineeringSame topicAerospace Engineering and Control SystemsFrench-language works237,207