MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3153037669 · doi:10.1155/2021/5521526

Forecasting Civil Aviation Incident Rate in China Using a Combined Prediction Model

2021· article· en· W3153037669 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yixiang Sun, Nana Geng

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Transportation · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHuman-Automation Interaction and Safety
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDivision of Graduate EducationNanjing UniversityNanjing University of Posts and TelecommunicationsGovernment of Jiangsu Province
KeywordsCivil aviationExponential smoothingAviationAviation safetyOperator (biology)StatisticsOperations researchEngineeringMathematicsAerospace engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the rapid development of air transportation, the complexity, importance, and severity of civil aviation safety have gradually become prominent. It is essential to use various data to analyze and predict the level of aviation safety. This paper used a combined prediction model based on Induced Ordered Weighted Averaging (IOWA) operator to forecast the civil aviation incident rate. We compiled and calculated civil aviation incident data and total flight hours from 2008 to 2019 in China and took the civil aviation incident rate (incident numbers per ten thousand flight hours) as the prediction object. First, this paper used the nonlinear regression model, Grey Verhulst model, and Holt-Winters exponential smoothing model to forecast the civil aviation incident rate individually. Then, it used the smallest sum of squared errors as the principle to use a combined prediction model based on the IOWA operator. It can be seen from the experimental results that the prediction accuracy of the combined model is better than single models. Finally, this paper forecasted the civil aviation incident rate in 2020 and 2021. The results showed that the predicted rates are 0.524 and 0.551. Most notably the incident rate will increase significantly compared with 2019.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.783
Threshold uncertainty score0.430

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.300 · 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 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

Citations10
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Advanced TransportationSame topicHuman-Automation Interaction and SafetyFrench-language works237,207