MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401668036 · doi:10.36348/sjet.2024.v09i08.002

A Fuzzy Inference System for Predicting Air Traffic Demand based on Socioeconomic Drivers

2024· article· en· W4401668036 on OpenAlexaff
Nur Mohammad Ali, Md Kamrul Hasan Tuhin, Rezwanul Ashraf Ruddro, Md Emon Ahmed, Nowrin Sharmin, Jayanta Bhusan Deb

Bibliographic record

VenueSaudi Journal of Engineering and Technology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicAviation Industry Analysis and Trends
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAviationFuzzy inference systemDemand forecastingComputer scienceInferenceMean squared errorFuzzy logicSensitivity (control systems)Operations researchAir travelAdaptive neuro fuzzy inference systemEconometricsEngineeringFuzzy control systemEconomicsArtificial intelligenceStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The past ten years have seen significant expansion in the aviation sector, which during the previous five years has steadily pushed emerging countries closer to economic independence. It is crucial to accurately forecast the potential demand for air travel to make long-term financial plans. To forecast market demand for low-cost passenger carriers, this study suggests working with low-cost airlines, airports, consultancies, and governmental institutions' strategic planning divisions. The study aims to develop an artificial intelligence-based methods, notably fuzzy inference systems (FIS), to determine the most accurate forecasting technique for domestic low-cost carrier demand in Bangladesh. To give end users real-world applications, the study includes nine variables, two sub-FIS, and one final Mamdani Fuzzy Inference System utilizing a Graphical User Interface (GUI) made with the app designer tool. The evaluation criteria used in this inquiry included mean square error (MSE), accuracy, precision, sensitivity, and specificity. The effectiveness of the developed Air Passenger Demand Prediction FIS is assessed using 240 data sets, and the accuracy, precision, sensitivity, specificity, and MSE values are 90.83%, 91.09%, 90.77%, and 2.09%, respectively.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.060

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.195 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSaudi Journal of Engineering and TechnologySame topicAviation Industry Analysis and TrendsFrench-language works237,207