Assessing wind impact on semi-autonomous drone landings for in-contact power-line inspection
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, the use of inspection drones has become increasingly popular for high-voltage electric cable inspections due to their efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and ability to access hard-to-reach areas. However, safely landing drones on power lines, especially under windy conditions, remains a significant challenge. This study introduces a semi-autonomous control scheme for landing on an electrical line with the NADILE drone (an experimental drone based on original LineDrone key features for inspection of power lines) and assesses the operating envelope under various wind conditions. A Monte Carlo method is employed to analyze the success probability of landing given initial drone states. The system’s performance is assessed by testing two landing strategies, adjusting controller parameters, and considering four different levels of wind intensity. The results show that a two-stage landing strategy offers higher probabilities of landing success and gives insight regarding the best controller parameters and the maximum wind level for which the system is robust. Finally, an experimental demonstration of the system landing autonomously on a power line is presented.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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 it