Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
These notes are offered to ICAO Council, Legal Committee and Special Group as an aid to re-examination of some basic policy issues. The proposal to prepare two unlinked Conventions is welcome in principle. In particular, a Convention dealing solely with surface damage or injuries caused by aircraft accidents has the best potential to satisfy the mandate for a modern version of the 1952 Rome Convention PROVIDED THAT it can be applied to all civil aircraft in a contracting State, and does not contain concepts derived from the passenger liability provisions of the 1999 Montreal Convention. However, the proposal for a separate Convention imposing liability on aircraft operators for the consequences of terrorism is unjust, deeply flawed and inconsistent with the well-established policy of a large number of States who already accept a duty to ensure that human victims are fairly compensated if criminal terrorists do not pay. In addition, leading developed nations with experience of terrorism have devised a variety of forms of public/private partnership – all of which include some kind of State support for the property insurance of terrorism risks. Hence, although there may be a case for international agreement on compensation for the consequences of terrorism generally, there is no justification for one restricted to aviation: it is simply not needed. Moreover, there are no precedents which might support proposals for collective States’ responsibility for the consequences of terrorism in any one State.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it