Enabling Technologies and Techniques for Floor Identification
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
Location information has initiated a multitude of applications such as location-based services, health care, emergency response and rescue operations, and assets tracking. A plethora of techniques and technologies have been presented to ensure enhanced location accuracy, both horizontal and vertical. Despite many surveys covering horizontal localization technologies, the literature lacks a comprehensive survey incorporating up-to-date vertical localization approaches. This article provides a detailed survey of different vertical localization techniques such as path loss models, time of arrival, received signal strength, reference signal received power, fingerprinting utilized by WiFi, radio-frequency identification (RFID), global system for mobile communications (GSM), long-term evolution (LTE), barometer, inertial measurement unit (IMU) sensors, and geomagnetic field. The article primarily aims at human localization in indoor environments using smartphones in essence. Besides the localization accuracy, the presented approaches are evaluated in terms of cost, infrastructure dependence, deployment complexity, and sensitivity. We highlight the pros and cons of these approaches and outline future research directions to enhance the accuracy to meet the future needs of floor identification standards set by the Federal Communications Commission.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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