MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2899498414 · doi:10.1155/2018/6374592

Challenges for Air Transport Providers in Czech Republic and Poland

2018· article· en· W2899498414 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Anna Toruń, Czesław Burniak, Jerzy Biały, J. Tomaszewska, Norbert Grzesik, Šárka Hošková-Mayerová, Marta Woch, Mariusz Zieja, Adam Rurak

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Transportation · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicAviation Industry Analysis and Trends
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMinisterstvo Obrany České Republiky
KeywordsCzechAir transportEuropean unionEu countriesOrder (exchange)Regional scienceTransport engineeringBusinessGeographyEngineeringInternational tradeFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of this paper is to find a trend in air transport behaviour in the Czech Republic and Poland, based on data collected between the years of 2004 and 2016. The choice of data period for the analysis was made because of the date when both mentioned countries joined the European Union and availability of data. The data used in this article is provided from the Eurostat web page where many revealing statistics are collected. The correlations of indicators were chosen as a method of the analysis. It was observed that the number of passengers increased up to 30% and 460%, respectively, in the Czech Republic and in Poland. The authors will explain possible reasons and aspects of such behaviour in order to make some predictions for future trends in air transport. The additional aim is to understand transport processes and economic growth in neighbouring countries during the period of focus. The knowledge of conditional changes in the number of passengers utilizing air transport grants the ability to make forecasts about the needed infrastructure, number of aircrafts, pilots, and staff needed at the 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.

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)0.000
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.203
Threshold uncertainty score0.331

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 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

Citations5
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Advanced TransportationSame topicAviation Industry Analysis and TrendsFrench-language works237,207