MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W569950867

COMPOSING JAZZ : MELDING FOUR REGIONAL CARRIERS TOGETHER INTO AN AIR CANADA SUBSIDIARY WAS NO EASY TASK

2005· article· en· W569950867 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sandra Arnoult

Bibliographic record

VenueAir transport world · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Policy and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConsolidation (business)BankruptcyBusinessRelocationAir traffic controlFinanceStaffingJazzEconomicsEngineeringManagementComputer science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Air Canada Jazz is the consolidation of four airlines with disparate fleets, thousands of employees, different languages and distinct corporate cultures in a company that dates back to January 2001. Four regionals were merged into Air Canada Regional, a wholly owned subsidiary of Air Canada Enterprises. The first step was to ground the older aircraft, which reduced the fleet by 30 percent. The consolidation of the different employee groups was complicated by government restrictions on layoffs and involuntary transfers and competition requirements. In addition, the new entity had to abide by agreements to comply with the Official Languages Act, which entails preserving bilingualism among employees. Increased security costs and governmental charges for air traffic services were also a hindrance. However, unions have agreed to givebacks and concessions and have agreed to structured pay along seniority lines (for the pilots), which streamlines scheduling, since the type and size of plane is not a determinant of pay. This allows for lower training costs and relocation costs. Today, it operates some 615 daily departures to 52 destinations in Canada and 23 in the U.S. With parent Air Canada's emergence from bankruptcy, advertising and other spending to make its business grow is scheduled.

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)0.000
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.418
Threshold uncertainty score0.890

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.235 · 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
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAir transport worldSame topicCanadian Policy and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207