MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2004184699 · doi:10.1117/12.669552

UAV autonomy for complex environments

2006· article· en· W2004184699 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDistributed Control Multi-Agent Systems
Canadian institutionsDefence Research and Development Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceFlexibility (engineering)Context (archaeology)Situation awarenessEnablingCommand and controlDroneBattlespaceIsolation (microbiology)Distributed computingComputer securitySystems engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Complexity is a dominant, multi-dimensional attribute of the battlespace, and is evident in the geography, manmade infrastructure, force asymmetry and organizational processes. The Unmanned Aerial Vehicle represents a strategic enabler for military operations in complex environments by providing a flexible means of acquiring real-time information and deriving actionable knowledge. Limitations arising from remotely piloted UAV operation together with the desired operational flexibility in complex environments both dictate the need for increasingly autonomous UAV operation within a rigorous airspace integration framework. UAV autonomy relies primarily on access to missioncritical information from on-board sensors and networked datalink, together with comprehensive, efficient and robust algorithms for decisions on course of action. Global battlefield networking extends the notion of individual vehicle operation to a coordinated team, whose members carry out complementary and/or redundant tasks. DRDC research on cooperative teaming of UAVs covers in particular the development and implementation of cooperative control based on model predictive control. In the context of operations in complex environments, the present paper discusses the selected approach to cooperative control, and presents applications to formation flight, collision avoidance, real-time implementation and multi-processing, and fault-detection, isolation and recovery.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.718
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.207 · 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