Investigation of Static and Kinematic Surveying Performance of Handheld GNSS Receiver
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, the static and kinematic positioning performance of the Garmin GPSMAP 66sr handheld GNSS receiver has been tested. For the static test, GNSS data was collected for 24 h and divided into shorter sessions of 1, 2, and 4 h to assess the performance of the receiver as a function of occupation time. The whole and subgroup data were processed by the relative method for different satellite constellations using three reference stations, to form a very short (45 m), short (5.1 km), and relatively long (73.2 km) baselines. For the kinematic test, the data was collected for approximately 1 h and processed with the relative method. Additionally, the whole and subgroup static and kinematic GNSS data of the Garmin receiver were also processed with the Canadian Spatial Reference System-Precise Point Positioning (CSRS-PPP) online service. All Garmin static and kinematic solutions (both relative and PPP) were compared with those calculated by the geodetic receiver. The overall static results show that the Garmin GPSMAP 66sr handheld receiver provides accuracy in a few centimeters with the relative method when integer ambiguities were correctly fixed and in the decimeter-to-meter level using the PPP technique. For the kinematic scenario, the results were relatively poor within the level of decimeters with the relative method while the level of meters with the PPP technique.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".