Public Opinion About the Benefit, Risk, and Acceptance of Aerial Manipulation Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aerial manipulation systems are an emerging subclass of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs or “drones”) that use a mobile arm to manipulate their environment. Public opinion is an important consideration for drones, but past public opinion polls have focused on drones without attached arms and have relied on text-based surveys. Study 1 (N= 190) assessed participants’ perceived benefit, risk, and acceptance of aerial manipulation systems across five applications, using an animation-based online public opinion survey. Study 2 (N= 194) assessed the influence of stimulus sampling on public opinion of aerial manipulation systems by replicating Study 1 using an alternative set of animations. Study 3 (N= 396) assessed the influence of using animations versus a text control on perceptions of the poll and aerial manipulation systems, as well as the influence of survey platform (YouGov Direct versus Mechanical Turk). Results show that delivery applications are perceived as more beneficial than several other applications; that people’s opinions and imagining of drones were different if they watched animations versus read text; and that stimulus and population sampling influence the results of public opinion polls about drones.
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 | 0.008 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".