ArticleProceedings. Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences2016
North error estimation based on solar elevation errors in the third step of sky-polarimetric Viking navigation.
Article in Proceedings. Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Speedy bearings to slacked steering: Mapping the navigation patterns and motions of Viking voyages.PloS one · 2023Article
- Article
- Success of sky-polarimetric Viking navigation: revealing the chance Viking sailors could reach Greenland from Norway.Royal Society open science · 2018Article
- Accuracy of the hypothetical sky-polarimetric Viking navigation versus sky conditions: revealing solar elevations and cloudinesses favourable for this navigation method.Proceedings. Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences · 2017Article
- Celestial polarization patterns sufficient for Viking navigation with the naked eye: detectability of Haidinger's brushes on the sky versus meteorological conditions.Royal Society open science · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The theory of sky-polarimetric Viking navigation has been widely accepted for decades without any information about the accuracy of this method. Previously, we have measured the accuracy of the first and second steps of this navigation method in psychophysical laboratory and planetarium experiments. Now, we have tested the accuracy of the third step in a planetarium experiment, assuming that the first and second steps are errorless. Using the fists of their outstretched arms, 10 test persons had to estimate the elevation angles (measured in numbers of fists and fingers) of black dots (representing the position of the occluded Sun) projected onto the planetarium dome. The test persons performed 2400 elevation estimations, 48% of which were more accurate than ±1°. We selected three test persons with the (i) largest and (ii) smallest elevation errors and (iii) highest standard deviation of the elevation error. From the errors of these three persons, we calculated their error function, from which the North errors (the angles with which they deviated from the geographical North) were determined for summer solstice and spring equinox, two specific dates of the Viking sailing period. The range of possible North errors Δ
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.