MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W588569460

Setting the Mantrap

2007· article· en· W588569460 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Carroll McCormick

Bibliographic record

VenueAirports international · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicAviation Industry Analysis and Trends
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDoorsComputer securityAirport securityAccess controlBorder SecurityTransport engineeringIdentification (biology)Air traffic controlEngineeringBusinessComputer science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article focuses on the problem of “piggybacking” and “tailgating” at airport security checkpoints. Transport Canada is addressing this issue of unauthorized entry by requiring that all doors leading to restricted terminal areas must be staffed by inspection guards. The article relates that while airports in Canada have implemented automated “mantrap” technology into their airport access control systems and the new Restricted Area Identification Card (RAIC), airports in the U.S. are reportedly not required to staff doors leading to restricted areas. Rather than addressing access control, U.S. airports have put their attention more on passenger and luggage screening. The article gives an overview of the technology and operations of the automated security systems, as well as the costs involved in their application.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.875
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.217 · 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.

Study designObservational
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
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAirports internationalSame topicAviation Industry Analysis and TrendsFrench-language works237,207