An Economic Study of the US Post-9/11 Aviation Security
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Aviation Security world changed drastically following the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001. In this paper we look at 1) the changes that occurred to the aviation security sector and 2) how the United States aviation security compares to other parts of the world. Currently the United States has the most expensive aviation security infrastructure in the world. The main motivation of this topic was to find out why the United States was spending so much and assessing whether its aviation security sector was economically efficient. In this paper the authors provide the history of aviation security and the changes that took place post 9/11. A cost breakdown is presented and whether the amount of money being spent is worth the benefits received is discussed. This study also compares the United States’ aviation security to that of Europe and Canada. These comparisons analyze how the total expenditure for the U.S. Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is similar/dissimilar to the aviation security expenditures in Europe and Canada. Recommendations for future budgets and tax revenues are also made. Overall, it is concluded that the amount of TSA’s spending on aviation security is justified.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".