Building synergies between the electronic passport and passenger data: Where will mobile identification technologies take us?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The electronic passport is still underutilised in both border security and aviation processes. As a result, international passengers are often required to produce their passports for examination up to five times at the airport before boarding. This is not only time-consuming but also inefficient because most processes treat the passenger as an unknown entity. Travel document identification technology and passenger data are key tools to improve the passenger process in crowded airport hubs, which face operational constraints and diminishing public investments. To overcome space constraints and investment shortages, passport inspection and other identity assertion processes to support travel must be optimised to improve passenger flows for the benefit of both security and facilitation. This paper discusses the future of mobile travel document inspection based on the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) standards at the airport border environment — a process that will be shaped by passenger data quality, biometric tools and the eventual deployment of the ICAO Digital Travel Credential (DTC). The advancement of facial recognition technology paired with airline passenger data, such as advance passenger information (API) and passenger name record (PNR), will assist identification technologies in the future to the point that the passenger can be identified at a walking pace.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".