Risco da Fauna na Aviação Brasileira: Aplicação da Análise de Correspondência para análise da relação entre Fase de Voo e Tipo de Reporte
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Este trabalho apresenta uma aplicacao de tecnica estatistica de Analise de Correspondencia Simples para compreender a inter-relacao de variaveis e interpretar os resultados de forma analitica para reportes de eventos de interesse com Fauna no Brasil e as diversas fases de voo que envolvem o posicionamento de aeronaves quando estao num mesmo espaco fisico com a fauna. Os dados utilizados foram coletados no Sistema de Gerenciamento de Risco Aviario (SIGRA), tambem conhecida como Ficha CENIPA 15 (FC15). Foram considerados 13.437 eventos, datados entre janeiro de 2011 e dezembro de 2016, e para a analise de correspondencia foi utilizado o software R. Os resultados mostraram que existe inter-relacao entre tipo de evento e fase de voo.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".