MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3207420437 · doi:10.5267/j.ijiec.2021.8.001

Cockpit crew pairing Pareto optimisation in a budget airline

2021· article· en· W3207420437 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Industrial Engineering Computations · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicVehicle Routing Optimization Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersChulalongkorn University
KeywordsCrewCockpitCrew schedulingPareto principleComputer scienceOperations researchReliability engineeringMathematical optimizationAeronauticsEngineeringOperations managementMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Crew pairing is the primary cost checkpoint in airline crew scheduling. Because the crew cost comes second after the fuel cost, a substantial cost saving can be gained from effective crew pairing. In this paper, the cockpit crew pairing problem (CCPP) of a budget airline was studied. Unlike the conventional CCPP that focuses solely on the cost component, many more objectives deemed to be no less important than cost minimisation were also taken into consideration. The adaptive non-dominated sorting differential algorithm III (ANSDE III) was proposed to optimise the CCPP against many objectives simultaneously. The performance of ANSDE III was compared against the NSGA III, MOEA/D, and MODE algorithms under several Pareto optimal measurements, where ANSDE III outperformed the others in every metric.

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.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.609
Threshold uncertainty score0.656

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.254 · 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