Regionalization for urban air mobility application in metropolitan areas: case studies in San Francisco and New York
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In a new era of mobility where the transportation of persons or goods via flying vehicles over urban areas has garnered great interest in its application in urban space. With the anticipated utilization of sUAS in urban airspace, a multi-dimensional understanding of urban space is essential. As a first step to assess the feasibility of Urban Air Mobility (UAM) in urban areas, we conduct regionalization and correspondence analysis in highly urbanized areas – San Francisco, CA and Manhattan, NY – by incorporating population dataset and urban 3D airspace to delineate the regional boundaries. Regionalization is carried out using graph-based clustering technique called SKATER (Spatial ‘K’luster Analysis by Tree Edge Removal) to group the regions having similar characteristics and address the compound effect of both population and spatial information. By classifying the regions into five categories through correspondence analysis, the operational and economic feasibility of each region is evaluated. The results provide the region maps of each city with the most and least attractive regions for UAM application with the temporal notion, whether the clusters are daytime-intensive or nighttime-intensive areas. The outcomes have several unique information that can benefit drone delivery target area identification, landing location identification, demand prediction. Our approach can contribute to providing a useful basis for management for UAM in urban areas as well as the process of regulating airspace use.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".