Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the immediate aftermath of WW2 there sprang up an international argument over the relative merits for aerial navigation of area-coverage radio navaids versus point-source systems. The United States was in favour of point-source whereas the UK proposed area-coverage, systems for which had successfully been demonstrated under very adverse conditions during the war. It rumbled on for many years, not being finally settled until the ICAO Montreal Conference of 1959 decided for point-source. Since then, VOR/DME/ADF/ILS have been the standard aviation radio navaids and there seems little likelihood of any change in the near future, GNSS notwithstanding, if one discounts the phasing-out of ADF. It now seems sufficiently in the past to perhaps allow a dispassionate evaluation of the technical arguments used at the time–the political ones can be left to another place and time.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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.
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".