MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392726367 · doi:10.1155/2024/9635616

Mechanism Analysis of the Impact of COVID‐19 on the Whole Process of Aircraft Turnaround Operations

2024· article· en· W4392726367 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Xiaowei Tang, Jiaqi Wu, Cheng‐Lung Wu, Shengrun Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Transportation · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicDigital Transformation in Industry
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNanjing UniversityCivil Aviation Administration of ChinaNanjing University of Aeronautics and AstronauticsNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsMechanism (biology)Turnaround timeProcess (computing)Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)2019-20 coronavirus outbreakAeronauticsComputer scienceEngineeringOperations managementMedicineVirologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Efficient aircraft turnaround operations at airports are vital to ensure overall air traffic network performance. After the outbreak of COVID‐19, the traditional aircraft ground handling process has changed significantly due to new requirements put forward by the pandemic prevention and control policy. To better understand how COVID‐19 has affected ground handling operations, a discrete‐event simulation model of turnaround is established to analyze the change in the whole turnaround process before and after the pandemic. The critical path of turnaround operations was used to identify the significantly affected subprocesses to which airports should pay attention. For a case study on the two busiest airports in China, the aircraft turnaround time increased by about 18% after COVID‐19. Cabin cleaning, catering, and passenger embarking were the main processes in causing this increase. By evaluating the impact mechanism of COVID‐19 on turnaround operations, the study sheds light on strategic, tactical, and operational approaches for relevant authorities.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.772
Threshold uncertainty score0.226

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.274 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Advanced TransportationSame topicDigital Transformation in IndustryFrench-language works237,207