MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2883504687 · doi:10.1155/2018/6847030

Multicriteria Spatial Decision Analysis for the Development of the Italian Minor Airport System

2018· article· en· W2883504687 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Maria Rosaria Guarini, Anthea Chiovitti, Francesco Rocca

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Transportation · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicUrban Planning and Valuation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSapienza Università di Roma
KeywordsTransport engineeringAviationTourismCharterAir transportStatus quoAir traffic controlReservationPopularityConstruct (python library)International airportOperations researchComputer scienceBusinessEngineeringGeographyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The infrastructures supporting air transport throughout the world in the civil sector are classified as primary-level (large numbers of passengers and goods on both commercial and charter long- and medium-haul flights) and secondary-level (few passengers and goods on general aviation private, short-haul flights). In parallel with primary-level air traffic general growth all over the world and in Italy, the popularity of “individual” nonscheduled general aviation traffic increased in many countries since 1990s. The latter aviation has proved to be a valid alternative to rail and road transport for short-medium distance journeys (100-500 km) for classes of business and tourist passengers. In keeping with the national and international airport system development scenarios, the paper illustrates the results of in-depth analyses aiming to construct an integrated GIS-based Multicriteria Decision Analysis evaluation methodology. It gears towards formulating strategies for the development and streamlining of some existing (51) Italian minor airports and for the right locations for the new hubs required to construct an efficient second-level air transport network (the “highway in the sky”). Different levels of evaluation verify the suitability of airport services and infrastructure (status quo) and the attractiveness of airport hubs given the territorial facilities found in their catchment areas.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 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

Citations4
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Advanced TransportationSame topicUrban Planning and ValuationFrench-language works237,207