MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415463755 · doi:10.3390/drones9110734

Natural Disaster Information System (NDIS) for RPAS Mission Planning

2025· article· en· W4415463755 on OpenAlexaff
Robiah Al Wardah, Alexander Braun

Bibliographic record

VenueDrones · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSoil and Land Suitability Analysis
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPayload (computing)Geospatial analysisWorkflowNatural disasterExploitNatural hazardHazardEarth observationCloud computing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Today’s rapidly increasing number and performance of Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems (RPASs) and sensors allows for an innovative approach in monitoring, mitigating, and responding to natural disasters and risks. At present, there are 100s of different RPAS platforms and smaller and more affordable payload sensors. As natural disasters pose ever increasing risks to society and the environment, it is imperative that these RPASs are utilized effectively. In order to exploit these advances, this study presents the development and validation of a Natural Disaster Information System (NDIS), a geospatial decision-support framework for RPAS-based natural hazard missions. The system integrates a global geohazard database with specifications of geophysical sensors and RPAS platforms to automate mission planning in a generalized form. NDIS v1.0 uses decision tree algorithms to select suitable sensors and platforms based on hazard type, distance to infrastructure, and survey feasibility. NDIS v2.0 introduces a Random Forest method and a Critical Path Method (CPM) to further optimize task sequencing and mission timing. The latest version, NDIS v3.8.3, implements a staggered decision workflow that sequentially maps hazard type and disaster stage to appropriate survey methods, sensor payloads, and compatible RPAS using rule-based and threshold-based filtering. RPAS selection considers payload capacity and range thresholds, adjusted dynamically by proximity, and ranks candidate platforms using hazard- and sensor-specific endurance criteria. The system is implemented using ArcGIS Pro 3.4.0, ArcGIS Experience Builder (2025 cloud release), and Azure Web App Services (Python 3.10 runtime). NDIS supports both batch processing and interactive real-time queries through a web-based user interface. Additional features include a statistical overview dashboard to help users interpret dataset distribution, and a crowdsourced input module that enables community-contributed hazard data via ArcGIS Survey123. NDIS is presented and validated in, for example, applications related to volcanic hazards in Indonesia. These capabilities make NDIS a scalable, adaptable, and operationally meaningful tool for multi-hazard monitoring and remote sensing mission planning.

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 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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.303
Threshold uncertainty score0.153

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDronesSame topicSoil and Land Suitability AnalysisFrench-language works237,207