What role can unmanned aerial vehicles play in emergency response in the Arctic: A case study from Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines search and rescue and backcountry medical response constraints in the Canadian Arctic and potential for unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) to aid in response and preparedness. Semi-structured interviews (n = 18) were conducted with search and rescue responders, Elders, and emergency management officials to collect data on current emergency response and potential for UAV use. UAV test flights (n = 17) were undertaken with community members. We analyzed five years of weather data to examine UAV flight suitability. Numerous challenges face Arctic search and rescue and backcountry emergency response. Changing social and environmental conditions were described as increasing vulnerability to backcountry emergencies. Responders desired additional first aid and emergency training. Legal and weather restrictions were found to limit where, when and who could fly UAVs. UAVs were demonstrated to have potential benefits for hazard monitoring but not for SAR or medical response due to legal restrictions, weather margins, and local capacity. We find that communities are ill-prepared for ongoing SAR demands, let alone a larger disaster. There are numerous limitations to the use of consumer UAVs by Arctic communities. Prevention of backcountry medical emergencies, building resilience to disasters, and first responder training should be prioritized over introducing UAVs to the response 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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".