MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1519702572 · doi:10.54648/aila2009016

Persons with Disabilities and Their Right to Fly

2009· article· en· W1519702572 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Norberto Ezequiel Luongo

Bibliographic record

VenueAir and Space Law · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Law and Aviation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSupreme courtConventionPolitical scienceLegislationAgency (philosophy)LawPublic administrationSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

At the beginning of 2008, a landmark ruling was issued by the Canadian Transportation Agency (CTA); the decision ordered some carriers to adopt a ‘one-person-one fare’ policy for persons with severe disabilities who travel within Canada by air. The rule provided the airlines a one-year period for the implementation of the new policy. This decision was unsuccessfully challenged before a Canadian Federal Court and the Supreme Court of Canada. Hence, the rule became effective as of 10 January 2009. This article analyzes this decision and the legislation in force in the European Union and the United States addressing the rights of air passengers with disabilities. It also includes a brief commentary on the pertaining rules contained in Annex 9 of the Chicago Convention, and the most relevant and recent jurisprudential developments in this matter are summarized. In addition, the possibility of adoption of a similar regulation in other countries and some nuances derived from the construction and implementation of the Canadian regulation are presented.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.252
Threshold uncertainty score0.502

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0070.009
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAir and Space LawSame topicInternational Law and AviationFrench-language works237,207