MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2163800256 · doi:10.1139/l05-095

Benchmarking airport reconstruction projects

2006· article· en· W2163800256 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Sandra Hantziagelis, Brenda McCabe

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicAviation Industry Analysis and Trends
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBenchmarkingTransport engineeringRedevelopmentInternational airportRange (aeronautics)Data envelopment analysisEngineeringOperations researchBusinessCivil engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The impact of redevelopment and expansion of airport operations has not received much attention in the literature. Data were collected for 22 North American airports, 26 airport projects, and 107 individual operational years (airport years) with at least 3.5 million passengers annually. Each airport undertook at least one brownfield passenger terminal project between 1991 and 2001. The study shows that some factors, such as traffic volume, air traffic movements, and cargo, may indicate impacts of airport redevelopment. It was also found that the strategic use of space is critical to operational efficiency, especially with the full range of non-aeronautical services that can be offered at airports. The cost of space may be higher, but it tended to improve overall efficiency. Reconstruction projects that were evaluated as successful tended to show operational recovery within 2 years of construction completion; this result was consistent through a wide range of project sizes, traffic levels, and services.Key words: airport terminal reconstruction, benchmarking, reconstruction impacts, airport performance measures, data envelopment analysis.

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 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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.342
Threshold uncertainty score0.988

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.165
Teacher spread0.150 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations2
Published2006
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Civil EngineeringSame topicAviation Industry Analysis and TrendsFrench-language works237,207