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 OpenAlexvenueno aff
Linning Liu, Xinglong Wang, Min He, Yanfeng Xu

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.

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)0.003
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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

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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Advanced TransportationSame topicEvaluation Methods in Various FieldsFrench-language works237,207