MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405757753 · doi:10.3390/app15010024

Error Modeling of Fiber Optic Gyroscope Universal Time Measurement

2024· article· en· W4405757753 on OpenAlexaff
Zishuai Wang, Yingmin Yi, Chun‐Yi Su, Jinsheng Zhang, Yiwei Yuan, Yuchen Zhao

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Sciences · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeophysics and Sensor Technology
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
FundersPeking University
KeywordsNutationUniversal TimeFibre optic gyroscopeVery-long-baseline interferometryGyroscopeCalibrationPhysicsGeodesyOptical fiberMathematicsOpticsStatisticsGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since the fiber optic gyroscope (FOG) is rigidly strapped down to the earth’s crust, there are various errors that affect the universal time (UT1) measurements. In this paper, the errors caused by various physical factors and mechanisms are analyzed in detail, with precession and nutation errors being taken into account, and modeling of the observation equations based on precession and nutation error correction is proposed. The mapping relationship with UT1 is established based on this observation equation; after the corresponding error correction and VLBI calibration, the high-accuracy solution of UT1 is finally completed. Through 14-day measurement experiments under a room temperature environment without any vibration isolation and magnetic shielding devices, the error variation of UT1 solution compared with the earth orientation parameter (EOP) 14 C04 data is calculated at less than 3.57 ms, with UT1 solution accuracy improved by 56% compared with the traditional method. These results indicate that this work facilitates the study of giant FOG error modeling and correction, advancing our understanding of errors in giant FOG measurements and improving the accuracy of UT1 solution.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.188 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied SciencesSame topicGeophysics and Sensor TechnologyFrench-language works237,207