MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3184791416 · doi:10.23977/acss.2021.050108

Strategy for Fighting Wildfires Using Mean-Shift Algorithm

2021· article· en· W3184791416 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in Computer Signals and Systems · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicUAV Applications and Optimization
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDroneMean-shiftComputer scienceAlgorithmArtificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To deal with the wildfires in Victoria, we need to arrange the drones reasonably. Taking into account capability, safety, economy and topography, we use Mean-Shift algorithm to determinate the optimal numbers and mix of drones and predict the situation of extreme wildfires in the future. Finally, we determine the optimal number and combination of drones after optimization. According to the size, frequency and locations of wildfires in Victoria in 2019, we use logistic model to estimate the general location of the wildfires. And we use Mean Shift algorithm to find the Optimal number, mix and locations of drones. The result is we need 95 SSA drones, 122 repeater drones and 122 drones with two functions, and the total cost is $3,390,000.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.870
Threshold uncertainty score0.360

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.245 · 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