MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3203747960 · doi:10.1155/2021/9951206

Research on Aircraft Surface Taxi Path Planning and Conflict Detection and Resolution

2021· article· en· W3203747960 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ningning Zhao, Nan Li, Yu Sun, Lei Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Transportation · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTraffic control and management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCivil Aviation University of China
KeywordsComputer scienceTrajectoryPath (computing)Simulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aircraft surface taxiing conflict avoidance is mostly adopted by waiting and rerouting methods, but this method does not consider the difference in total taxiing time that may be caused by different strategies. In this study, the airport taxiing path optimization model and taxiing area division model are constructed first. Then, the taxiway use is controlled by subregion based on the analysis of the surface activity area connection relationship. Based on the results of aircraft surface taxiway preselection, the time window of the taxiing area is solved and conflict detection is performed. For aircraft with taxiing conflicts, waiting or changing paths is selected to deconflict taxiing by comparing priorities. An improved A∗ algorithm solution is applied to generate conflict-free glide paths and new glide trajectory occupancy time windows, while the glide paths of aircraft without glide conflicts are not affected. The results of the study show that the use of time windows for conflict detection and deconfliction can further reduce the total taxiing time of aircraft operating on the surface, resulting in a significant reduction in the number of aircraft conflicts, and thus, airport operational safety is ensured. This study has a high practical value and is expected to be applied in the real-time control decision of aircraft taxiing in the future.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.948
Threshold uncertainty score0.247

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations11
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Advanced TransportationSame topicTraffic control and managementFrench-language works237,207