Drones and Geography: Who Is Using Them and Why?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Drones have equipped geographers with the capacity to collect high-quality geospatial data at multiple spatial, spectral, and temporal resolutions. Although the adoption of drones is increasing across geography, knowledge of those using this technology and their practices is limited. The purpose of this article is to understand who is using drones in geography, how they are using them, and what future opportunities exist. We collected data from eighty-eight survey respondents, predominantly based in the United States but a handful from Australia, Canada, the European Union, and the United Kingdom. The findings from our Web-based survey show that about 85 percent of geographers using drones are White. Female respondents made up only about 30 percent of respondents, although they represented about 75 percent of the eighteen to twenty-four age group. Although the word drone has a negative connotation, most users (∼38 percent) prefer it, followed by unmanned aerial vehicle (∼21 percent) and unmanned aerial systems (∼19 percent). Only 22 percent of geographers have more than six years of drone experience, suggesting the rapid growth in use and popularity among geographers. Off-the-shelf drones are the most desirable, perhaps due to their low cost and ease of use. Overall, drones in geography are considered positive and have introduced a new era of small extent geospatial analyses.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".