MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4312997779 · doi:10.1177/1071181322661551

Improving Air Travel Comfort & Experience: Designing for Infection Prevention and Control in Response to COVID-19

2022· article· en· W4312997779 on OpenAlexaff
Kayla Daigle, Chantal Trudel, Shelley Kelsey

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfection Control and Ventilation
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council CanadaCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPandemicCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)AviationAir travelOutbreakSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)Control (management)2019-20 coronavirus outbreakBusinessInfection controlInfectious disease (medical specialty)MedicineEnvironmental healthDiseaseEngineeringComputer scienceIntensive care medicineVirology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In lieu of the recent impacts of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) on the health and safety of individuals around the world, domestic and international travel organizations, and more specifically, the aviation industry, rapidly implemented preventative measures to support infection prevention and control (IPAC). Such measures have drastically and understandably changed how passenger interactions and experiences take place through various points in their air travel journey. Research that examines the user experience of passengers in response to changes that emerged from the COVID-19 pandemic is needed. This study focused on developing a better understanding of passenger experience during the COVID-19 pandemic and how the design of the environment may be influencing this experience. Design recommendations to respond quickly to future pandemic conditions or other infectious outbreak scenarios is an expected outcome of this study.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual MeetingSame topicInfection Control and VentilationFrench-language works237,207