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 OpenAlexaffvenue
Chi Yuan, Youmin Zhang, Zhixiang Liu

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.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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

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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations622
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicFire Detection and Safety SystemsFrench-language works237,207