MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407028780 · doi:10.1016/j.aej.2025.01.068

A conceptual framework for smart ports: Novel UAV-based pilotage protocol using flying aerial ad-hoc networks

2025· article· en· W4407028780 on OpenAlexaff
Mohammed Jamal Almansor, Norashidah Md Din, Mohd Zafri Baharuddin, Ahmed Jasim Al-asadi, Huda Mohammed Alsayednoor, Zeyad Ghaleb Al-Mekhlafi, Badiea Abdulkarem Mohammed, Majid Khalaf Alshammari

Bibliographic record

VenueAlexandria Engineering Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicUAV Applications and Optimization
Canadian institutionsMinistry of Transportation of Ontario
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPilotageProtocol (science)Computer scienceDroneAeronauticsComputer networkEngineeringHumanities

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The increasing complexity of port operations, driven by growing container volumes and larger vessel sizes, has made efficiency a critical priority. Traditional vessel guidance to the quayside relies on pre-installed buoyage systems with geometrically colored landmarks, which are costly, safety-critical, and expose pilots to significant risks. In this paper, we propose a novel approach by introducing a Flying Aerial Ad-Hoc Network (FANET)-based vessel pilotage protocol as part of a smart port concept. This innovative system replaces the IALA buoyage system with UAV-guided vessel navigation, leveraging advanced sensing and communication infrastructure to enable precise berthing operations. Furthermore, it incorporates coordinated UAV charging processes to maintain operational continuity. Our work addresses a significant gap in existing FANET routing protocols, which often neglect the integration of UAV routing and mobility models tailored for specific pilotage tasks, such as charging coordination. By employing reinforcement learning (RL) techniques, the proposed methodology aims to optimize vessel guidance, planning, and scheduling, offering an intelligent port system capable of determining optimal trajectories. This novel approach not only enhances operational efficiency but also sets the foundation for modernizing maritime navigation and port management with cutting-edge UAV technologies.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlexandria Engineering JournalSame topicUAV Applications and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207