MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400990981 · doi:10.69554/gylk7216

Customer service in aviation security screening

2018· article· en· W4400990981 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Neil Parry, Tara Sutorius

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of airport management · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicManagement Systems and Quality Improvement
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAirport securityAviationBusinessCustomer serviceAeronauticsService (business)Computer securityMarketingComputer scienceEngineeringAerospace engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is a generally held belief that those mandated with security screening do not view passengers as customers. This notion is prevalent in the industry and amongst the travelling public. This paper looks at what the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority (CATSA) has been doing since October 2016 to start shifting this mindset amongst more than 6000 screening officers, and the almost 60 million customers it serves annually.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.209
Threshold uncertainty score0.416

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of airport managementSame topicManagement Systems and Quality ImprovementFrench-language works237,207