Development of methods for statistical modeling of air traffic demonstrated through a Winnipeg-area case study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The integration of remotely piloted aircraft systems (RPAS) into shared airspace requires a thorough risk analysis. Specific operations risk assessment (SORA) is a widely adopted approach by international civil aviation authorities to guide RPAS operators in evaluating risks associated with their mission. A critical step in the SORA process is analyzing the airspace where the operation will take place, which requires knowledge of the intruder aircraft's flight characteristics as well as the airspace model. This paper proposes a methodology for developing a statistical airspace model using historical aircraft track data collected in the Winnipeg Manitoba Flight Information Region. The developed methods include data cleaning routines, Kalman filters for track smoothing, and Bayesian networks for synthetic track generation, following an approach similar to that employed by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Lincoln Lab. Additionally, the developed methodology allows for the analysis of specific models by altitude or aircraft type. The methods presented were subsequently adjusted for a comprehensive analysis spanning across Canada's diverse airspace. The initial statistical model, derived from Canada-wide data, is currently accessible to the public via the National Research Council's GitHub repository [ https://github.com/nrc-cnrc/Canadian-Airspace-Models ].
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".