MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4319875116 · doi:10.1139/dsa-2022-0031

Semi-autonomous drone control with safety analysis

2023· article· en· W4319875116 on OpenAlex

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueDrone Systems and Applications · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHuman-Automation Interaction and Safety
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEngineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
KeywordsDroneWorkloadAutomationCrewComputer scienceBridge (graph theory)CompromiseRisk analysis (engineering)Control (management)EngineeringSimulationSystems engineeringReliability engineeringAeronauticsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper describes the partial automation of drones (also referred to as uncrewed aerial vehicles, UAVs, or aerial robots) in populated areas within the visual line-of-sight of their pilot. Mission responsiveness is improved by reducing the number of human crew members and avoiding the need for area clearance, while carefully managing the workload of those remaining to ensure no compromise on safety. The work employs a system-centric approach with regard to integrating human and automation tasks based on their capabilities and use of standard procedures, whilst prioritizing the predictability and simplicity of the overall system. Safety claims about the proposed system are posed and rigorously analyzed through a structured safety case. The proposed system is applied to a bridge inspection case study with simulation results and scenario analysis.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.880
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.296 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it