MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2588991266 · doi:10.69554/baym6143

Analysis of waiting times in the baggage claim area of an airport passenger terminal

2014· article· en· W2588991266 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of airport management · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTransport and Logistics Innovations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTerminal (telecommunication)Transport engineeringComputer scienceAeronauticsBusinessEngineeringTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The development of level-of-service measures has been a major issue for airport operators worldwide. Research on the quality of airport passenger terminal services is being performed to reduce costs, redirect investment and increase the level of customer satisfaction. The main objective of this research is to develop standard waiting-time measures for luggage in airport baggage claim areas according to user perceptions. The present study applied psychometrical scaling theory using the method of successive categories to provide causal relationships between passenger perceptions and waiting times in baggage claim areas. Finally, the level-of-service standards proposed for Brazilian airports were compared with a similar airport in Canada. The results indicated that Brazilian passengers are slightly more demanding than Canadian passengers and those passengers in Fortaleza are the most demanding of the studied Brazilian airports.

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.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.621
Threshold uncertainty score0.335

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.216 · 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