MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W650074081

OVER-THE-WING

2004· article· en· W650074081 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
J Pothier

Bibliographic record

VenueAirports international · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Engineering and Vibration Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWingBridge (graph theory)International airportAeronauticsEngineeringStructural engineeringTransport engineeringMedicineSurgery
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Two passenger bridges, also known as a dual bridge system, are used regularly on wide-body aircraft to speed up boarding and disembarking. With low-cost carriers (LCCs), docking mostly takes place at either the L1 or L2 door that is located forward of the wing, since the aft door is located behind the wing. A fully-automated Over the Wing (OTW) bridge may be the solution for LCCs. One OTW Bridge has been installed at Calgary International Airport and three at the Vancouver International Airport, and it has been demonstrated that used in conjunction with a front bridge, an OTW bridge can reduce turn times by up to ten minutes. In addition to increasing productivity for the airlines, OTW bridges can lead to greater gate utilization and even defer the need to construct new gates.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.349
Threshold uncertainty score0.380

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.201 · 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 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
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAirports internationalSame topicStructural Engineering and Vibration AnalysisFrench-language works237,207