MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Is the aircraft leasing industry on the way to a perfect storm? Finding answers through a literature review and a discussion of challenges

2023· review· en· W4377046935 on OpenAlexaff
Sebastian Wandelt, Xiaoqian Sun, Anming Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Air Transport Management · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicRisk Management in Financial Firms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsStormAircraft industryAeronauticsQuestions and answersEngineeringEconomicsOperations researchMarketingBusinessComputer scienceMeteorologyGeographyWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since the emergence of the first private aircraft leasing companies in the 1970’s, the airline industry has undergone tremendous changes. Supported by several decades of growing demands and rising world economies, the share of leased aircraft across airlines worldwide has grown steadily, exceeding 50% for the first time during the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic. Given that earlier research has quantified the optimal lease rate for an airline between 40% and 60%, the industry might be facing challenges soon — potentially counteracting the recent recovery from COVID-19. This study reviews the existing research on aircraft leasing; a subject which has been rather scattered in the literature for the past few decades. We summarize more than 70 scientific papers published on aircraft leasing and closely related subjects. Based on the dissection and categorization of existing studies, we derive a set of important challenges for the aircraft leasing industry, which should be addressed by the community.

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)0.012
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.011
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.006
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.237 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations23
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Air Transport ManagementSame topicRisk Management in Financial FirmsFrench-language works237,207