MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2253245086

An Empirical Analysis of the Competitiveness in the U.S. Airline Industry

2015· article· en· W2253245086 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mahmoud M. Nourayi, Julie W. Suh

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of Economics and Finance · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicAviation Industry Analysis and Trends
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProfitability indexMean reversionUnit rootPanel dataEconomicsEconometricsReturn on assetsRecessionEmpirical examinationFinancial economicsMonetary economicsActuarial scienceMacroeconomicsFinance
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the competitiveness of the airline industry in the United States from 1982 to 2012. We examine the stochastic behavior of corporate profitability ratios using a balanced panel of publicly-traded U.S. Airline firms. In particular, we use a panel unit root approach to examine the persistence of profitability. Using a second generation panel unit root test developed by Pesaran (2007) that controls for cross-sectional dependence, we find some evidence that is consistent with airlines¡¯ return on assets (ROA) exhibiting mean-reversion during a part of our examination period, but not for the full period. In particular, our findings show that when ROA is used as a profitability measure, profits are mean-reverting in the earlier years of our examination period but not mean-reverting following the demand shocks of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2011 and the 2008 recession. Therefore, our findings produce some evidence in support of the long-standing ¡°competitive environment¡± hypothesis originally set forward by Mueller (1977).

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.058

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.224 · 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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReview of Economics and FinanceSame topicAviation Industry Analysis and TrendsFrench-language works237,207