ATCEM: a synthetic model for evaluating air traffic complexity
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Air traffic complexity, which measures the disorder of air traffic distribution, has become the critical indicator to reflect air traffic controller workload in air traffic management (ATM) system. However, it is hard to assess the system accurately because there are too many correlated factors, which make the air traffic complexity nonlinear. This paper presents an air traffic complexity evaluation model with integrated classification using computational intelligence (ATCEM). To avoid redundant factors, critical factors contributing to complexity are analyzed and selected from numerous factors in the ATCEM. Subsequently, to construct the mapping relationship between selected factors and air traffic complexity, an integrated classifier is built in ATCEM. With efficient training and learning based on aviation domain knowledge, the integrated classifier can effectively and stably reflect the mapping relationship between selected factors and the category of air traffic complexity to ensure the precision of the evaluation. Empirical studies using real data of the southwest airspace of China show that the ATCEM outperforms a number of state‐of‐the‐art models. Moreover, using the critical complexity factors selected in ATCEM, the air traffic complexity could be effectively estimated. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it