MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2059857409 · doi:10.1163/156855309x452539

Improving Search and Rescue Using Contextual Information

2009· article· en· W2059857409 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Daniele Calisi, Luca Iocchi, Daniele Nardi, Gabriele Randelli, V. A. Ziparo

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvanced Robotics · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAI-based Problem Solving and Planning
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Science Foundation
KeywordsSearch and rescueComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceRoboticsRobotContext (archaeology)Rescue robotArchitectureHuman–computer interactionFormalism (music)Systems engineeringMobile robotEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Search and rescue (SAR) is a challenging application for autonomous robotics research. The requirements of this kind of application are very demanding and are still far from being met. One of the most compelling requirements is the capability of robots to adapt their functionalities to harsh and heterogeneous environments. In order to meet this requirement, it is common to embed contextual knowledge into robotic modules. We have previously developed a context-based architecture that decouples contextual knowledge, and its use, from typical robotic functionalities. In this paper, we show how it is possible to use this approach to enhance the performance of a robotic system involved in SAR missions. In particular, we provide a case study on exploration and victim detection tasks, specifically tailored to a given SAR mission. Moreover, we extend our contextual knowledge formalism in order to manage complex rules that deal with spatial and temporal aspects that are needed to model mission requirements. The approach has been validated through several experiments that show the effectiveness of the presented methodology for SAR.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations10
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvanced RoboticsSame topicAI-based Problem Solving and PlanningFrench-language works237,207