MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1852719163 · doi:10.1139/cjfr-2014-0347

A survey on technologies for automatic forest fire monitoring, detection, and fighting using unmanned aerial vehicles and remote sensing techniques

2015· article· en· W1852719163 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFire Detection and Safety Systems
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
FundersU.S. Forest ServiceNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsFirefightingFire detectionWildfire suppressionAerial surveyRemote sensingFire controlField (mathematics)Systems engineeringAeronauticsComputer scienceEnvironmental scienceEngineeringArchitectural engineeringGeographyCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Because of their rapid maneuverability, extended operational range, and improved personnel safety, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) with vision-based systems have great potential for monitoring, detecting, and fighting forest fires. Over the last decade, UAV-based forest fire fighting technology has shown increasing promise. This paper presents a systematic overview of current progress in this field. First, a brief review of the development and system architecture of UAV systems for forest fire monitoring, detection, and fighting is provided. Next, technologies related to UAV forest fire monitoring, detection, and fighting are briefly reviewed, including those associated with fire detection, diagnosis, and prognosis, image vibration elimination, and cooperative control of UAVs. The final section outlines existing challenges and potential solutions in the application of UAVs to forest firefighting.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.917
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.237 · 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