MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385271034 · doi:10.1002/rob.22231

Autonomous aerial robotics for package delivery: A technical review

2023· review· en· W4385271034 on OpenAlexaff
Jack Saunders, Sajad Saeedi, Wenbin Li

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Field Robotics · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicRobotic Path Planning Algorithms
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
FundersEngineering and Physical Sciences Research CouncilUK Research and Innovation
KeywordsDroneTruckRoboticsState (computer science)Computer scienceCollision avoidanceGrippersControl (management)Routing (electronic design automation)EngineeringRobotSystems engineeringTransport engineeringArtificial intelligenceCollisionEmbedded systemComputer securityAutomotive engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Small unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) have gained significant interest in the last decade. More specifically these vehicles have the capacity to impact package delivery logistics in a disruptive way. This paper reviews research problems and state‐of‐the‐art solutions that facilitate package delivery. Different aerial manipulators and grippers are listed along with control techniques to address stability issues. Landing on a platform is next discussed which encompasses static and dynamic platforms. Landing on a dynamic platform presents further challenges. This includes delayed control responses and poor precision of the relative motion between the platform and the aerial vehicle. Subsequently, risks such as weather conditions, state estimation, and collision avoidance to ensure safe transit is considered. Finally, delivery UAV routing is investigated which categorizes the topic into two areas: drone operations and drone–truck collaborative operations. Additionally, we compare the solutions against design, environmental, and legal constraints.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.004

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 head0.092
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.273 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations72
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Field RoboticsSame topicRobotic Path Planning AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207