Future healthcare logistics: a survey of the public opinion on drones in Denmark
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Drones are expected to become widespread in society, making public readiness an important prerequisite for successfully unleashing them. This article investigates Danish citizens’ opinions on drones across varying fields of application and, specifically, six potential cases of healthcare logistics. Survey data representative of age, gender, and geography were collected and included information about respondents’ background, knowledge level of drones, and opinions on different drone use cases. Data were analysed with frequency tables and bivariate cross-tabulation. A thousand and four Danish adults completed the survey. Although other fields of application received higher levels of support, a majority of the respondents were positive towards using drones for healthcare logistics. Transportation of medicine and blood samples between hospitals were the most accepted healthcare use cases. Support varies across age with the highest support found in the eldest age group. Also, the more citizens report to know about drones, the more they tend to support using them. The results suggest that policymakers and firms must be attentive towards the public opinion on drones and seek insights into what citizens regard as noble purposes of using drones. Moreover, citizens must become more acquainted with drones, as this will likely boost public support.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".