MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7117587058 · doi:10.1016/j.rtbm.2025.101585

Machine learning-enabled real-time risk prediction and mitigation in drone-based hazmat delivery

2025· article· en· W7117587058 on OpenAlexafffund
Ahmed Moussa, Elkafi Hassini, Mohamed Ezzeldin, Wael El-Dakhakhni

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch in Transportation Business & Management · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicUAV Applications and Optimization
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsRisk assessmentHazardous wasteRisk managementProduction (economics)Work (physics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hazardous material (hazmat) transportation presents considerable public safety and regulatory challenges, especially in dense urban environments. While drones are gaining traction as a viable solution for last-mile hazmat delivery, the literature has yet to present a comprehensive framework that integrates real-time risk mitigation with multi-stakeholder consequence assessment. This study addresses this critical gap by introducing a novel drone-based hazmat transportation framework built on two core innovations: the Accident Prediction and Mitigation System (APRiMS) and a multi-dimensional risk prediction suite. APRiMS functions as an autonomous decision-support engine, continuously processing real-time flight, shipment, and environmental data to estimate accident likelihood and initiate mitigation measures. In parallel, the framework incorporates four machine learning models that predict the potential impacts of drone-related incidents on the public, businesses, and customers. These components operate within a closed-loop architecture, wherein risk predictions dynamically inform APRiMS decisions, enabling real-time, consequence-aware operational responses. The proposed framework offers a scalable and intelligent deployment of drones for high-risk logistics.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.531
Threshold uncertainty score0.544

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch in Transportation Business & ManagementSame topicUAV Applications and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207