MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6959851657 · doi:10.13016/m2j09w69t

Effect Of New Security Regulations On Airline Concentration

2011· other· en· W6959851657 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueMaryland Shared Open Access Repository (USMAI Consortium) · 2011
Typeother
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPasture and Agricultural Systems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMonopolyCompetition (biology)Quarter (Canadian coin)Market shareTerrorismOligopolyMarket structure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An entire set of new airport security regulations were implemented globally after September 11, 2001 terrorist attack on U.S.A. The effect of these new security regulations on competition level of airline industry is analyzed here for international flights arriving and departing from American airports, using enplanement data from 1990 to 2000. It is found here that, new regulations slightly reduced the competition level of the airline industry. However, the change is very subtle. Additionally, these new regulations helped some airline organizations to manipulate the market in their favor. In the forth quarter of 2001 the monopoly rate suddenly and unusually went up around the world. However, the situation persists for only one quarter and this particular issue was resolved from 2002 only. It is proposed that in the oligopoly market the big airline firms were able to use economies of scale, in various forms, to gain market share immediately after the terrorist attack.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.063

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMaryland Shared Open Access Repository (USMAI Consortium)Same topicPasture and Agricultural SystemsFrench-language works237,207