Analysis of Airport Risk Propagation in Chinese Air Transport Network
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, due to the close coupling between airports, airport risk propagation has become a huge challenge. However, it has not been fully understood on the network level. Airport risk can be transferred through other airports owing to connected resources. In this study, we consider two risk factors including airport delay and saturation and propose a risk coupling model based on a clustering algorithm to fit the index and form risk series. To understand the risk propagation mechanism, we build risk propagation networks based on the Granger Causality test, and we apply complex network theory to analyze the evolution of the risk propagation network. We study the regular pattern of risk propagation from perspectives of time and space. Through network analysis, we find four time stages in the risk propagation process and the participation of airports in risk propagation has a positive correlation with airport sizes. In addition, more large airports tend to prevent risk propagation in unoccupied and normal situations, while small airports perform better than large airports in busy situations. Via the conclusion, our work can assist airlines or air traffic managers in controlling the scale of risk propagation before its key time turning point. By identifying the critical airport level and related factors in risk propagation, they can also reduce single airport risk and risk participation through corresponding risk control measures, finally avoiding the large-scale spread of risk and reducing delay or cancellation of more flights.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 it