MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3118682277 · doi:10.2514/6.2021-0463

Influence of Carbon Pricing on Regional Aircraft and Route Network Design

2021· article· en· W3118682277 on OpenAlexaff
Stewart J. Reid, Ruben E. Perez, Peter Jansen, Cees Bil

Bibliographic record

VenueAIAA Scitech 2021 Forum · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAdvanced Aircraft Design and Technologies
Canadian institutionsRoyal Military College of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCarbon taxTurbopropEnvironmental economicsBusinessEnvironmental scienceGreenhouse gasComputer scienceIndustrial organizationAutomotive engineeringEconomicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

View Video Presentation: https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2021-0463.vid Carbon pricing policies have become the de-facto standard policy of national and multi-national governments in an attempt to mitigate the affects of green house gasses on the environment. To date carbon pricing, either in the form of a carbon tax or an emissions trading scheme, has been implemented by more than 60 countries. Regional aircraft network operations will be challenged by the effect of carbon pricing policies as they increase the fuel price on domestic air travel. A System of Systems analysis is performed to determine the effect of carbon pricing on a regional airline network. This analysis includes route and passenger allocations while considering different combinations of a narrow body jet transport and turboprop aircraft. Trade-offs in network operation were analyzed using different turboprop configurations under three different carbon pricing scenarios for a representative regional network using data from Qantas Airways operating in Australia. While the carbon pricing policies increase the fuel price by up to 72%, results show that optimal allocation of airline resources in the network increase the operational cost and passenger ticket price only by up to 5.81%. This is achieved by changing the fleet compositions by up to 34%. Optimal route network configurations favored smaller but more efficient turboprops over higher capacity turboprops to improve payload range efficiency and reduce fuel burn.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.210 · 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAIAA Scitech 2021 ForumSame topicAdvanced Aircraft Design and TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207