Flight Delay Classification Prediction Based on Stacking Algorithm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the development of civil aviation, the number of flights keeps increasing and the flight delay has become a serious issue and even tends to normality. This paper aims to prove that Stacking algorithm has advantages in airport flight delay prediction, especially for the algorithm selection problem of machine learning technology. In this research, the principle of the Stacking classification algorithm is introduced, the SMOTE algorithm is selected to process imbalanced datasets, and the Boruta algorithm is utilized for feature selection. There are five supervised machine learning algorithms in the first-level learner of Stacking including KNN, Random Forest, Logistic Regression, Decision Tree, and Gaussian Naive Bayes. The second-level learner is Logistic Regression. To verify the effectiveness of the proposed method, comparative experiments are carried out based on Boston Logan International Airport flight datasets from January to December 2019. Multiple indexes are used to comprehensively evaluate the prediction results, such as Accuracy, Precision, Recall, F1 Score, ROC curve, and AUC Score. The results show that the Stacking algorithm not only could improve the prediction accuracy but also maintains great stability.
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".