MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2540453140 · doi:10.1109/dasc.2006.313667

Impact of ADS-B on Controller Workload: Results from Alaska's Capstone Program

2006· article· en· W2540453140 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Arthur P. Smith, Anand Mundra

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAir Traffic Management and Optimization
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCapstoneWorkloadAvionicsController (irrigation)AeronauticsEngineeringComputer scienceSimulationAerospace engineeringOperating systemComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Capstone program introduced avionics in Alaska that included ADS-B equipment, starting in the year 2000. The program succeeded in equipping 208 aircraft in the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta by the end of 2004, resulting in Capstone-equipped aircraft accounting for nearly 100% of part-135 operations by airplanes based in that region. This paper estimates the impact of the use of Capstone equipment on controller workload. It summarizes the results of a controller survey regarding the effect of Capstone equipment on controller tasks, and provides quantitative results regarding the effect of ADS-B equipment on controller workload. From the survey 57% of controllers indicated that they needed less time providing IFR separation services than without ADS-B, and 79% of the controllers felt that the overall efficiency of their operation had increased with ADS-B. An analysis of flight progress strips showed that the currently deployed Capstone equipment, when operating properly as required by ATC, would provide an 18% reduction in controller communications workload. The analysis also indicated that if all the aircraft in the Y-K Delta were properly equipped, the reduction in communications workload would be 26%

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)0.004
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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
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)0.0020.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.213 · 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

Citations1
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAir Traffic Management and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207