MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2900588605 · doi:10.1109/iscc.2018.8538356

Smart Disaster Detection and Response System for Smart Cities

2018· article· en· W2900588605 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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHuman Mobility and Location-Based Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInternet of ThingsComputer securityNatural disasterDamagesComputer scienceContext (archaeology)Emergency managementDisaster responseEmergency responseSmart citySmart systemRisk analysis (engineering)BusinessGeographyMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Every year, natural and human-induced disasters result in infrastructural damages, monetary costs, distresses, injuries and deaths. Unfortunately, climate change is strengthening the destructive power of natural disasters. In this context, Internet-of-Things (IoT)-based disaster detection and response systems have been proposed to cope with disasters and emergencies by improving the disaster detection and search and rescue missions during disaster response. Accordingly, IoT devices are used to collect data and help to identify hazards after disasters and to localize injured people. However, a solely IoT-based detection and response system will not be totally suitable for emergency response in smart cities, as the lack of connectivity with IoT devices might occur, due to breakages in communication infrastructures or network congestions. Therefore, we propose a novel architecture for smart disaster detection and response system for smart cities. We discuss the main building blocks of our envisioned smart system, as well as the critical challenges that will be faced ahead to implement our smart system.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.396
Threshold uncertainty score0.936

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.269 · 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