Modeling passenger comfort in turboprop aircraft using objective measures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BackgroundA quantitative comfort model will aid in evaluating comfort levels of various target groups before the actual flight of an airplane. However, constructing the model is always a challenge due to the complexity of the phenomenon.ObjectivesIn this paper, we present quantitative comfort models to predict the (dis)comfort of passengers flying with turboprops based on objective measures.MethodsNinety-seven participants took part in two experiments conducted during real flights, during which forty of them had environmental and personal factors recorded using (self-developed) measurement tools. The collected data were analyzed to model the relations between objective measures and subjective feelings.ResultsTwo preliminary models based on gradient boosting regression were developed. The models were able to predict the changes in comfort and discomfort of individual passengers with an accuracy of 0.12±0.01 and 0.21±0.01 regarding normalized comfort and discomfort scores, respectively. Additionally, contributions of different factors were highlighted.ConclusionThe outcomes of the models show that we took a step forward in modeling the human comfort experience using objective measurements. Anthropometry (including age), seat positions, time duration, and row (noise) emerged as leading factors influencing the feeling of (dis)comfort in turboprop planes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".