Examining the Potential of Generative Language Models for Aviation Safety Analysis: Case Study and Insights Using the Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research investigates the potential application of generative language models, especially ChatGPT, in aviation safety analysis as a means to enhance the efficiency of safety analyses and accelerate the time it takes to process incident reports. In particular, ChatGPT was leveraged to generate incident synopses from narratives, which were subsequently compared with ground-truth synopses from the Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS) dataset. The comparison was facilitated by using embeddings from Large Language Models (LLMs), with aeroBERT demonstrating the highest similarity due to its aerospace-specific fine-tuning. A positive correlation was observed between the synopsis length and its cosine similarity. In a subsequent phase, human factors issues involved in incidents, as identified by ChatGPT, were compared to human factors issues identified by safety analysts. The precision was found to be 0.61, with ChatGPT demonstrating a cautious approach toward attributing human factors issues. Finally, the model was utilized to execute an evaluation of accountability. As no dedicated ground-truth column existed for this task, a manual evaluation was conducted to compare the quality of outputs provided by ChatGPT to the ground truths provided by safety analysts. This study discusses the advantages and pitfalls of generative language models in the context of aviation safety analysis and proposes a human-in-the-loop system to ensure responsible and effective utilization of such models, leading to continuous improvement and fostering a collaborative approach in the aviation safety domain.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".