New topic horizons for drone systems and applications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary This journal (Drone Systems and Applications; DSA) conducted a targeted “horizon scan” during 2022 within our team of editors and associate editors. We asked— Which research areas currently under-represented in Drone Systems and Applications would you like to see more heavily represented in the future? The process highlighted five areas of interest and potential growth: Drones in the geosciences Aquatic drones Ground drones Drones within calibration/validation experiments Drones and computer vision Over the past two years (2020–22), the journal has published over 50 papers with a strong leaning towards aerial drones for ecology and also with an engineering focus. DSA is keen to receive new submissions addressing the five highlighted areas, which lie firmly within the aims and scope of the journal. Further to the horizon scan, we propose two special collections for the coming year—one addressing drone applications ( drones in geoscience applications) and a second addressing drone systems ( aquatic drone systems). We would like to hear from scientists and practitioners in these fields as both contributors and (or) collection editors.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".