MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385344155 · doi:10.5539/mas.v17n2p13

Aircraft Ground Support Equipment: A Framework for Maintenance Strategies

2023· article· en· W4385344155 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Engr. Zia Ur Rahman, Faraz Akbar

Bibliographic record

VenueModern Applied Science · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicLife Cycle Costing Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDowntimeStandardizationAircraft maintenanceBusinessService (business)AviationAsset (computer security)Operations managementComputer scienceMarketingEngineeringComputer securityAeronautics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The airline industry encompasses a wide range of businesses, called airlines, which offer air transport services for paying customers or business partners. Airline industry can be classed as just one sector of the wider aviation industry. There are a number of services that may be done on a plane when it is parked at an airport terminal gate, and they are known as "aircraft ground handling. The number of passengers using airports continues to rise, pushing such facilities to their maximum capacity. Without the substantial services provided by the Ground Handlers, these brick and mortar infrastructures would not be able to continue to exist. Ground Support Equipment (GSE) is an industry term that refers to support equipment typically found at an airport that is used to service the aircraft between flights. The primary goal of GSE maintenance is to deliver the holder or user with safe and operable equipment that is also presentable, while incurring as little expenses as possible and experiencing as little downtime as possible. The laws that oversee airport operations must be complied with by any maintenance programs that are begun on GSE. Introduced equipment standardization, processes standardization, parts standardization, inventory management, asset management, maintenance KPIS, life of equipment and impacts on performance and reliability. Too little maintenance may lead to expensive breakdowns, poor system performance, and reduced dependability. Regular maintenance improves dependability but raises costs.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0110.009
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.003

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueModern Applied ScienceSame topicLife Cycle Costing AnalysisFrench-language works237,207