MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1689418491 · doi:10.1139/juvs-2013-0016

Canada's domestic regulatory framework for RPAS: A call for public deliberation

2014· article· en· W1689418491 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Unmanned Vehicle Systems · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicSpace exploration and regulation
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeliberationDemocracyCivil societyPhase (matter)Public administrationPolitical sciencePrivate sectorBusinessPublic relationsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As of October 2012, Transport Canada approved the first phase in Canada's evolving regulatory framework for remotely piloted aircraft systems (RPAS), with three more phases to be put in place over the next four years. The focus of the first phase was only on small RPAS, but already several issues stand out as being particularly problematic, especially if they are carried through into the next phases of regulatory development: the extent of the private sector's influence; exclusion of some types of RPAS from regulation; and the extent of the collaboration between regulatory officials and the Canadian military. Over the next few years it will be imperative for civil society actors to take a more active role in ensuring that these remotely piloted technologies, which can be used to spy on and monitor citizens, are deployed and regulated in a manner consistent with the values of privacy, freedom, and democracy.

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 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)0.001
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.890
Threshold uncertainty score0.390

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.238 · 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