MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2966053671 · doi:10.3390/app9153145

AUV Adaptive Sampling Methods: A Review

2019· review· en· W2966053671 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

VenueApplied Sciences · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicUnderwater Vehicles and Communication Systems
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdaptive samplingComputer scienceSampling (signal processing)UnderwaterControl engineeringArtificial intelligenceEngineeringGeographyTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Autonomous underwater vehicles (AUVs) are unmanned marine robots that have been used for a broad range of oceanographic missions. They are programmed to perform at various levels of autonomy, including autonomous behaviours and intelligent behaviours. Adaptive sampling is one class of intelligent behaviour that allows the vehicle to autonomously make decisions during a mission in response to environment changes and vehicle state changes. Having a closed-loop control architecture, an AUV can perceive the environment, interpret the data and take follow-up measures. Thus, the mission plan can be modified, sampling criteria can be adjusted, and target features can be traced. This paper presents an overview of existing adaptive sampling techniques. Included are adaptive mission uses and underlying methods for perception, interpretation and reaction to underwater phenomena in AUV operations. The potential for future research in adaptive missions is discussed.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.981
Threshold uncertainty score0.870

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.326
GPT teacher head0.434
Teacher spread0.108 · 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