Use of Mobile Crowdsensing in Disaster Management: A Systematic Review, Challenges, and Open Issues
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the increasing efforts to utilize information and communication technologies (ICT) in disaster management, the massive amount of heterogeneous data that is generated through ubiquitous sensors paves the way for fast and informed decisions in the case of disasters. Utilization of the big "sensed" data leads to an effective and efficient management of disaster situations so as to prevent human and economic losses. The advancement of built-in sensing technologies in smart mobile devices enables crowdsourcing of sensed data, which is known as mobile crowdsensing (MCS). This systematic literature review investigates the use of mobile crowdsensing in disaster management on the basis of the built-in sensor types in smart mobile devices, disaster management categories, and the disaster management cycle phases (i.e., mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery activities). Additionally, this work seeks to unveil the frameworks or models that can potentially guide disaster management authorities towards integrating crowd-sensed data with their existing decision-support systems. The vast majority of the existing studies are conceptual as they highlight a challenge in experimental testing of the disaster management solutions in real-life settings, and there is little emphasis on the use cases of crowdsensing through smartphone sensors in disaster incidents. In light of a thorough review, we provide and discuss future directions and open issues for mobile crowdsensing-aided disaster management.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 it