Analysis of Network Robustness in Weighted and Unweighted Approaches: A Case Study of the Air Transport Network in the Belt and Road Region
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aviation transport is one of the most important and critical infrastructures in today’s global economy. Failure in its proper operations can seriously impact regional economic development, which is why it is important to evaluate network robustness. Previous analyses of robustness have mainly been conducted with an unweighted approach. In the development of air transport, however, the demand for route configuration has gradually decreased, while the demand for flight adjustments has increased. Consequently, the aviation network has developed unevenly, so adhering to a uniform approach for evaluating network robustness may lead to inaccurate results. Therefore, we examined which centrality sequence is the most sensitive to network robustness in both unweighted and weighted approaches. The air transport network selected for the case study comprised the six subregions of the Eurasian landmass of the Belt and Road region. The study results showed the following: (a) in the network constructed as an unweighted one, betweenness, and degree centrality had higher priorities in preserving network functionalities than eigenvector and closeness centrality; (b) in the network constructed as a weighted one, recursive power had a higher priority in preserving network functionalities than recursive centrality; and (c) no particular centrality measurement had a significant advantage in representing the totality of robustness. The betweenness centrality sequence was sensitive to the average shortest path length and global efficiency; the recursive power sequence was sensitive to the clustering coefficient, while degree centrality was sensitive to graph diversity. The findings of this study support the decisions about managing air transportation in the Belt and Road region.
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 | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".