MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1936711477 · doi:10.14295/transportes.v13i2.99

Development of level of service standards for airport check-in facilities

2005· article· pt· W1936711477 on OpenAlexafffund
Anderson Ribeiro Correia, S. C. Wirasinghe

Bibliographic record

VenueTransportes · 2005
Typearticle
Languagept
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicAviation Industry Analysis and Trends
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCoordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior
KeywordsService (business)HumanitiesPhysicsOperations managementEngineeringBusinessMarketingPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Neste trabalho é apresentada uma metodologia para o desenvolvimento de padrões de nível de serviço em terminais de passageiros em aeroportos em função da percepção dos usuários. O conceito fundamental desta metodologia é uma técnica para obter valores quantitativos para a percepção do serviço oferecido aos passageiros com base em pesquisas de campo em aeroportos. Particularmente o balcão de check-in é avaliado, considerando-se os seguintes fatores: tempo de processamento, tempo de espera e espaço disponível por usuário. O estudo utiliza dados obtidos a partir de uma pesquisa com passageiros conduzida no Aeroporto Internacional de São Paulo/Guarulhos. Os resultados indicam que se pode obter uma escala quantitativa de percepção a partir de dados qualitativos de uma pesquisa.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.047
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.067

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.047
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.184
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.110 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations6
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransportesSame topicAviation Industry Analysis and TrendsFrench-language works237,207