Comparing Air Transport Policies for Small Remote Communities: U.S.A., Canada, Portugal, Spain and Brazil
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines the regulatory status in the aviation industry, and the efforts of the U.S.A., Canada, Portugal, Spain and Brazil to adopt air transport policies and mechanisms to provide their populations with universal accessibility. A systems engineering grounded theory approach and a cross-national case-based comparison framework are used to look at the impacts of different policies and mechanisms on the air service to small remote communities. It is found that the success of a policy design critically depends on five factors: 1) the joint support of infrastructure investment, maintenance and operations and air services; 2) governments’ ability to promote competition and protect passengers in markets where competition does not exist; 3) the operating carrier’s choice of business model, technology for thin routes, and network; 4) political interest; and 5) local participation. Based on the evaluation of policy designs and assessment of policies in five substantially different national contexts and interviews with several stakeholders, the authors provide insights and suggest recommendations in small remote air transport policy for policy makers and practitioners. The recommendations are applicable to other countries reforming their aviation industries.
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 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) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".