Safety Performance Comparisons in Scheduled U.S. Carrier Operations: 2000-2004
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Airline safety is an important factor that customers seek and expect from air carriers. Safety performance, related to the rate of accidents and incidents, is frequently associated with the effectiveness of a carrier's internal processes. On-time performance, lost luggage, and customer complaints are, among others, publicly reported performance indicators that may differentiate one carrier from another. This article will consider how safety as a key performance indicator may reflect the effectiveness of the organization's operational policies and processes. The paper proposes that low-cost carriers (LCCs) demonstrate a better safety performance record than mainline and regional carriers. The results of this exploratory study of five years of safety and on-time performance data involving carriers in the United States suggest that the low-cost carrier segment is less prone to accidents and incidents and offers the best performance. As a result, the low-cost business model may improve an airline's safety and operational performance since it more efficiently transforms organizational inputs into safety performance outcomes. A model explaining the relationship between key characteristics of low-cost carriers and a higher performance standard is presented.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".