La gestion de l'incertitude dans une organisation internationale : le cas de I'OACI
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A typology of uncertainty reveals three dimensions: probability, vagueness, and ambiguity. At the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), terrorism has appeared as a threat to the agency's mandate, which is to ensure the harmonious development of civil air transportation. Faced with the probability that a terrorist act may occur, decision-makers in the international civil aviation System have developed an array of institutional responses. In the area of law, several instruments were created as the impact of events and techniques used by terrorists developed. In the area of management, the ICAO created a special unit reporting directly to the Secretary General and reviewed technical standards and procedures for aviation personnel. While new technologies were being deployed to reduce the probability of an illicit act, political responses were elaborated : use of the UN Secretary-Generalship, politicization of the ICAO Council, and international cooperation in the fight against terrorism. Uncertainty can be a vector of organizational development. Perception of uncertainty and the actions it brings about belong to afield of analysis of interest to the school of epistemics.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.036 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".