MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1850581943 · doi:10.3141/2501-03

Refinements to a Procedure for Estimating Airfield Capacity

2015· article· en· W1850581943 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueTransportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research Board · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAir Traffic Management and Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRunwayInternational airportQueueCivil aviationAviationAir traffic controlASDE-XComputer scienceOperations researchData setSet (abstract data type)Transport engineeringEngineeringGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a method for obtaining airfield capacity estimates using historical data from FAA's Aviation System Performance Metrics (ASPM) database. The process first involves merging individual flights and quarter-hour airport runway operations data sets from ASPM to create a new data set. Data for Newark Liberty International Airport (EWR) in New Jersey and San Diego International Airport in California from 2006 to 2011 were used. Then, filters for meteorological condition, runway configuration, called rates, and fleet mix were applied to the two airport data sets. The filtered data sets were then used in a censored regression model of capacity that included queue length (number of aircraft waiting to arrive or depart) and arrival–departure throughput count splits as independent variables. These attributes were found to affect airfield capacity at statistically significant levels, and parameters had expected signs and magnitudes. Additionally, capacities under ideal conditions were found to be reasonably close to other sources. The model also confirmed that average capacities at EWR during hours when a ground delay program (GDP) was running were lower than when there was no GDP in effect. The method described in this paper could be used to more precisely quantify airfield capacities in specific conditions of particular interest to air traffic controllers and airport operators to better facilitate decisions that rely heavily on a good understanding of capacity in these conditions. The data exploration and preparation undertaken as part of the study reveal some of the finer points of the ASPM data and how they can be used in a more meaningful way for airfield capacity estimation.

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 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)0.003
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 score0.440
Threshold uncertainty score0.626

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.130
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.236 · 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