MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6950567482 · doi:10.5683/sp3/c5m3vx

Drone Awareness and Perceptions: A Three Country Study 2014

2014· dataset· en· W6950567482 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueBorealis · 2014
Typedataset
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDronePollingSet (abstract data type)PerceptionAerial survey

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p>This survey aimed to understand awareness and perceptions surrounding the use of drones to identify and collect information in Canada, United States, and United Kingdom. The questions asked individuals whether they had a basic awareness of various Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV) applications, as well as assessed support for how they are being used and in what scenarios.</p> <p>The survey was conducted by the polling company Vision Critical in January 2014 based on a set of questions developed by the Surveillance Drones Research Team, <a href="http://www.sscqueens.org/SurveillanceDrones">Surveillance Studies Centre</a>, Queen's University.</p>

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.315
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.002

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.280 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBorealisFrench-language works237,207