Count Models to Represent the Impacts of Weather and Infrastructure on Flight Disruptions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper explores the application of count models to represent the relationship between flight disruptions and weather. Throughout the world, flights are regularly disrupted by delays at airports and in the terminal airspace, and less frequently by diversions and cancelations. Many delay studies have been conducted for large American and European airports, in part due to the availability of high-quality data. However, such high-quality data is not as readily available for other airports throughout the world. In this study, excess-zero count models are built using a publicly available dataset for Iqaluit Airport (YFB) in Northern Canada, to determine the influence of different weather components on disruption counts. Visibility and crosswind speeds are shown to have the largest influence on flight disruptions. The models are also applied using Aviation System Performance Metrics (ASPM) flight data for Anchorage Airport (ANC) in Alaska; the data is systematically degraded to match completeness of the Iqaluit data to test the models. The results verify that an excess-zero model using incomplete data yields results similar to that of a count model with complete data, demonstrating that an excess-zero model can overcome data incompleteness to yield acceptable results. Although count models have been applied extensively in the transportation literature, the authors believe this to be the first application to flight disruptions, and the first quantitative model of operations at a northern Canadian airport. This paper demonstrates that challenges in data availability—the case for most airports throughout the world—can be addressed with novel statistical modeling applications, and thus, delay studies can be conducted for almost any airport.
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 | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".