MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2319630088 · doi:10.1177/1541931214581007

Survey of Operators’ Unmanned Aircraft Systems Experience

2014· article· en· W2319630088 on OpenAlexaff
Xiaochen Yuan, Jonathan Histon, Steven L. Waslander

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAir Traffic Management and Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNational Airspace SystemAeronauticsAir traffic controlFree flightRange (aeronautics)Computer scienceEngineeringSystems engineeringAerospace engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The routine integration of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) into controlled airspace is a pressing challenge around the world. In order to identify what information surveillance systems need to detect and display about the UAS, air traffic controllers and pilots were surveyed. Participants were asked a wide range of questions regarding their experience with UAS and information requirements under different conditions. This paper focuses on understanding operators’ previous experiences with UAS. Close to 60% of controllers and 42% of pilots reported having had some form of experience with UAS. Approximately the same proportion of controllers reported UAS operating in airspace designated for UAS operations as those reporting operations in low and high density regions of airspace and near standard flows in their airspace.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.194 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual MeetingSame topicAir Traffic Management and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207