Analysis of Commercial Airplane Accidents Worldwide Using K-Means Clustering
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the Bureau of Transportation Statistics affirming the relative safety of air travel, with the lowest annual accident rate among various transportation modes, the importance of analyzing and mitigating aviation accidents remains paramount for the sustained safety and comfort of air travelers.This study leverages data from the Bureau of Aircraft Accident Archives (BAAA-acro) website, transformed into a dataset that encapsulates commercial airplane accident data spanning the period from 1918 to 2020.The dataset, comprising 110 observations across four variables, was subjected to K-means clustering to categorize the causes of airplane accidents.The optimal number of clusters for this analysis was determined using the Silhouette index.The investigation focused on two accident groups within the dataset.The first cluster, consisting of 106 observations, demonstrated a considerable degree of heterogeneity, indicative of a broad distribution and significant variation.The second cluster, comparatively smaller, comprised only four observations.The clustering exercise underscored that technical factors predominantly contribute to commercial airplane accidents.The findings of this study thus suggest that future efforts by aviation regulatory bodies to decrease aviation accident occurrences could benefit significantly from a concerted focus on these technical factors.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it