Quantifying Uncertainty in Bicycle-Computer Position Measurements
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<div class="section abstract"><div class="htmlview paragraph">Bicycle computers record and store global position data that can be useful for forensic investigations. The goal of this study was to estimate the absolute error of the latitude and longitude positions recorded by a common bicycle computer over a wide range of riding conditions. We installed three Garmin Edge 530 computers on the handlebars of a bicycle and acquired 9 hours of static data and 96 hours (2214 km) of dynamic data using three different navigation modes (GPS, GPS+GLONASS, and GPS+Galileo satellite systems) and two geographic locations (Vancouver, BC, Canada and Orange County, CA, USA). We used the principle of error propagation to calculate the absolute error of this device from the relative errors between the three pairs of computers. During the static tests, we found 16 m to 108 m of drift during the first 4 min and 1.4 m to 5.0 m of drift during a subsequent 8 min period. During the dynamic tests, we found a 95th percentile absolute error for this device of ±8.04 m. This error was mildly sensitive to the navigation system being used (GPS+Galileo had slightly smaller errors) and more sensitive to the geographic location where the data were acquired (BC errors were larger than CA errors). An absolute error of ±8.04 m is relatively large and limits a forensic investigator’s ability to precisely locate a bicycle within a crash scene based solely on data from this device.</div></div>
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it