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 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)0.002
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.518
Threshold uncertainty score0.772

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.024
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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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