MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404678338 · doi:10.1155/atr/7987154

Analysis and Prediction of Airfield Area Conflict Risk Under Dynamic Time‐Varying Network

2024· article· en· W4404678338 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Transportation · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEvaluation Methods in Various Fields
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersTianjin Science and Technology ProgramFundamental Research Funds for the Central UniversitiesNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsComputer scienceOperations researchTransport engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To ensure the safety of operations in the airfield area, it is crucial to address the increased conflict risks resulting from the growing number of vehicles and aircraft. Based on the complex network theory, this study takes aircraft and vehicles in the airfield area as nodes and selects five different indicators (average degree, average node weight, average weighted clustering coefficient, network density, and network efficiency) to characterize the operation state of the airfield area, so as to identify conflict risks. Building on this framework, an ATT‐Bi‐LSTM innovation prediction model based on LSTM network architecture is established to forecast the evolution of network indicators over time. By leveraging the algorithm to predict the temporal evolution of indicators, valuable insights into the future evolution of conflict risk can be gleaned from the prediction results. Real operational data from Xi’an Xianyang Airport are utilized as a demonstrative example in this study. The results of the experiments illustrate that the analytical approach proposed in this study achieves a precise identification of the indicators. The experimental results are then compared with data from other predictive models that operate on the same data set. Compared to alternative prediction models, the accuracy is increased by nearly 10%, reaching 89.78%. The results of the study help to accurately identify conflict risks in the airfield area in advance and provide strategic conflict avoidance strategies for relevant staff. This is essential to ensure the security of airfield area.

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.

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)0.001
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 score0.851
Threshold uncertainty score0.588

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.281 · 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