MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2054201703 · doi:10.1002/atr.141

Airport gate reassignments considering deterministic and stochastic flight departure/arrival times

2010· article· en· W2054201703 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Shangyao Yan, Ching‐Hui Tang, Yuzhou Hou

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Transportation · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAir Traffic Management and Optimization
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArrival timeOperations researchComputer scienceInteger (computer science)Plan (archaeology)Time of arrivalStochastic programmingVariety (cybernetics)Stochastic modellingInteger programmingMathematical optimizationTransport engineeringMathematicsEngineeringTelecommunicationsAlgorithmStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

SUMMARY It is often the case in actual airport operations that flight departure/arrival information will vary with time. In practice, flight departure/arrival times closer to the time when the airport authority starts to plan the reassignments tend to be more certain; those further away tend to be more stochastic. These two types of flights can be called deterministic flights and stochastic flights, respectively. A deterministic flight has a certain departure/arrival time; while a stochastic flight will have a variety of stochastic departure/arrival times. In this study the aim is to develop a gate reassignment model (GRM) designed to consider both deterministic and stochastic flight departure/arrival times. A 0–1 integer programming technique is applied to formulate the GRM. In practice gate reassignments need to be handled repeatedly, so to make this possible the GRM is applied to a dynamic gate reassignment framework (DGRF). The theoretical effectiveness of the GRM applied to the DGRF is evaluated by the development of a lower bound solution. Numerical tests, related to the operations of an international Taiwan airport, show that the proposed GRM and DGRF perform well. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.197 · 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

Citations17
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Advanced TransportationSame topicAir Traffic Management and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207