MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2791563336 · doi:10.3138/cart.53.1.2017-0022

Air Population over the Great Plains

2018· article· en· W2791563336 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Michael P. Peterson, Paul Hunt

Bibliographic record

VenueCartographica The International Journal for Geographic Information and Geovisualization · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAir Traffic Management and Optimization
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPopulationGeographyPopulation densityAltitude (triangle)Population sizeMeteorologyEnvironmental scienceDemographyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Early trails through the Great Plains remind us that humans have passed through the area for many years. The area was seen as an impediment; the purpose was simply to get to the other side. The Great Plains are now often referred to as “flyover country,” a disparaging description indicating that most people simply fly over. The “flyoverness” of the Great Plains can be examined through air population, the total number of people flying above the earth at any point in time. The instantaneous location of aircraft can now be tracked through an extensive network of ground aircraft sensors based on ADS-B (Automated Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast) that provides the position of an aircraft along with its identification, aircraft type, altitude, and speed. Air population can then be estimated by multiplying the number of seats for each aircraft by the current seat occupancy rate. This population is further divided by state and county. Maps show the total air population, the density of air population (population/area), and the ratio of air population to ground population. While high ground population areas also have a high air population, “flyover” states have a higher ratio of air population to ground population. The analysis also shows that many counties in the Great Plains regularly have more people above them than live on the ground.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.486
Threshold uncertainty score0.562

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCartographica The International Journal for Geographic Information and GeovisualizationSame topicAir Traffic Management and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207