Refinements to a Procedure for Estimating Airfield Capacity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.004 |
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".