MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411096401 · doi:10.3390/drones9060413

Unmanned Aerial Vehicles in Last-Mile Parcel Delivery: A State-of-the-Art Review

2025· review· en· W4411096401 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueDrones · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicUAV Applications and Optimization
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMileLast mile (transportation)State (computer science)AeronauticsDroneEnvironmental scienceMarine engineeringComputer scienceEngineeringGeographyGeodesy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) are being increasingly implemented in parcel delivery applications. The scientific progress in this field is progressing exponentially. However, there is a notable gap in synthesizing recent research progress in UAV applications for last-mile delivery. This review study addresses this gap and conducts an in-depth review of UAV research for last-mile delivery across seven domains: environmental performance, economic impacts, social impacts, policy and regulations, routing and scheduling, charging infrastructure, and energy consumption. The review indicates that UAVs promise to reduce last-mile delivery emissions by 71% and costs by 96.5% compared to truck delivery. Saturated knowledge analysis is conducted across the seven domains to identify potential research gaps. Additionally, this review identifies key knowledge gaps, including variability in environmental and cost data, limitations associated with 2D modelling, and a lack of experimental validation. Future research interventions aimed at advancing UAV adoption in last-mile delivery applications are discussed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.958
Threshold uncertainty score0.604

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.240 · 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