MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1986061398 · doi:10.2495/safe070331

Airport level of service perceptions before and after September 11: a neural network analysis

2007· article· en· W1986061398 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Mohamed Mokbel Elshafey, Dane Rowlands, Ettore Contestabile, A O Abd El Halim

Bibliographic record

VenueWIT transactions on the built environment · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicAviation Industry Analysis and Trends
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPerceptionService (business)Level of serviceBusinessAirport securityService levelComputer securityTransport engineeringComputer scienceMarketingPsychologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Physical infrastructure is constructed to provide services to it users.The perceptions of users regarding the level of service are not necessarily constant, however, making it necessary to adapt both the infrastructure and its attending services to adjust to new user demands.The tragic events of September 11, 2001 had just such a disruptive effect on the perception of service levels at airports.This paper uses neural network analysis to examine passenger survey data before and after the September 11 th attacks to identify shifts in level of service perceptions at Ottawa Airport.The analysis suggests a significant change occurred in the components that comprised passenger satisfaction levels, even though the overall level of satisfaction was largely unaffected.The results have clear implications for airport authorities in terms of maintaining or improving service provision in the presence of continuing security concerns.

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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.087
Threshold uncertainty score0.172

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.180 · 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

Citations2
Published2007
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWIT transactions on the built environmentSame topicAviation Industry Analysis and TrendsFrench-language works237,207