MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2969381273 · doi:10.1109/dcoss.2019.00103

Emerging Urban Challenge: RPAS/UAVs in Cities

2019· article· en· W2969381273 on OpenAlexaff
Luke Russell, Rafik Goubran, Felix Kwamena

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicVideo Surveillance and Tracking Methods
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDroneAgile software developmentComputer scienceComputer securitySoftware deploymentTransport engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An emerging urban challenge will be the proliferation of Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems (RPAS) or drones, as their usage grows and drones fill the urban skies. Urban airspace will include many more Uninhabited Aerial Vehicles (UAVs), and related accidents and mishaps will also increase. Applications of UAVs in urban environments include photography and film-making, security monitoring, real estate, construction, property and infrastructure inspections, leisure, public safety (fires, natural disasters, investigations), traffic, and much more. Emerging UAV applications include last-mile drone delivery services. This paper discusses urban scenarios where drones are more ubiquitous. Monitoring and related safety of these UAVs will be increasingly important. Though multi-modal purpose-built drone tracking and monitoring systems will be the most effective solution for detection and tracking of these RPAS, during the transition to more regular drone use in urban areas and in everyday urban applications, a more rapid-deployment and agile detection system is needed that does not require installation of hardware. In this paper, sensory substitution is presented as an approach to use ambient and pre-existing microphones and AI techniques to detect the presence of RPAS. Preliminary results show promise for this agile IoT method as a key solution to this emerging urban challenge.

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 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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.596
Threshold uncertainty score0.345

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.284
Teacher spread0.263 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations11
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicVideo Surveillance and Tracking MethodsFrench-language works237,207