MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1818380129 · doi:10.1596/1813-9450-5722

The Air Connectivity Index: Measuring Integration in the Global Air Transport Network

2011· book· en· W1818380129 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ben Shepherd, Jean‐François Arvis

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Bank eBooks · 2011
Typebook
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicAviation Industry Analysis and Trends
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndex (typography)Air transportEnvironmental scienceMeteorologyGeographyComputer scienceTransport engineeringEngineeringWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The authors construct a new measure of connectivity in the global air transport network, covering 211 countries and territories for the year 2007. It is grounded in network analysis methods, and is based on a gravity-like model that is familiar from the international trade and regional science literatures. It is a global measure of connectivity, in the sense that it captures the full range of interactions among all network nodes, even when there is no direct flight connection between them. The best connected countries are the United States, Canada, and Germany; the United States' score is more than two-thirds higher than the next placed country's, and connectivity overall follows a power law distribution that is fully consistent with the hub-and-spoke nature of the global air transport network. The measure of connectivity is closely correlated with important economic variables, such as the degree of liberalization of air transport markets, and the extent of participation in international production networks. It provides a strong basis for future research in areas such as air and maritime transport, as well as international trade.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.009
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.168 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations77
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Bank eBooksSame topicAviation Industry Analysis and TrendsFrench-language works237,207