MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2106270775 · doi:10.1139/juvs-2015-0004

Unmanned aerial systems: collaborative innovation to support emergency response

2015· article· en· W2106270775 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Brent Terwilliger, Dennis A. Vincenzi, David Ison

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Unmanned Vehicle Systems · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDisaster Management and Resilience
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmergency responseDisaster responseEvent (particle physics)Service (business)Incident responseFunction (biology)Scale (ratio)AeronauticsBusinessEmergency managementEnvironmental planningEnvironmental resource managementRisk analysis (engineering)Computer securityComputer scienceEnvironmental scienceEngineeringMedical emergencyGeographyPolitical scienceMarketingCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The utility and function of unmanned aerial systems (UAS) have continued to evolve in recent years, stimulated by conception of commercial (i.e., civil) opportunities. The onset of large-scale disaster events (e.g., wild fires, accidents, weather events, and nuclear, biological, chemical) contamination), can result in significant loss of life, damage to property and critical infrastructure, and disruption of service. The increasing effectiveness of UAS establishes a compelling case for providing expedited, economical, and flexible response to gain improved awareness of an emergency event and its effects. To reach the full potential of this technology, stakeholders from across the industry will need to make a concerted effort to collaboratively address potential concerns and issues.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.300 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Unmanned Vehicle SystemsSame topicDisaster Management and ResilienceFrench-language works237,207