Use of Mobile Crowdsensing in Disaster Management: A Systematic Review, Challenges, and Open Issues
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.
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 | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".