Remote sensing of the environment with small unmanned aircraft systems (UASs), part 2: scientific and commercial applications
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Small unmanned aircraft systems (UASs) are often suited to applications where the cost, resolution, and (or) operational inflexibility of conventional remote sensing platforms is limiting. Remote sensing with small UASs is still relatively new, and there is limited understanding of how the data are acquired and used for scientific purposes and decision making. This paper provides practical guidance about the opportunities and limitations of small UAS-based remote sensing by highlighting a small sample of scientific and commercial case studies. Case studies span four themes: (i) mapping, which includes case studies to measure aggregate stockpile volumes and map river habitat; (ii) feature detection, which includes case studies on grassland image classification and detection of agricultural crop infection; (iii) wildlife and animal enumeration, with case studies describing the detection of fish concentrations during a major salmon spawning event, and cattle enumeration at a concentrated animal feeding operation; (iv) landscape dynamics with a case study of arctic glacier change. Collectively, these case studies only represent a fraction of possible remote sensing applications using small UASs, but they provide insight into potential challenges and outcomes, and help clarify the opportunities and limitations that UAS technology offers for remote sensing of the environment.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 it