Bibliographic record
Abstract
Emirates Airlines wants greater access to Canada than is currently permitted under the existing Air Services Agreement between Canada and the United Arab Emirates. Thus far, the Government of Canada has legitimately refused the requests. The dispute between Canada and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) over air traffic rights boils down to two fundamental issues that transcend both countries: 1. The importance of the civil aviation sector (airlines, airports, and support services) to the economies of both countries; and 2. The importance of a level playing field for competition between the domestic carriers of each country and between the major hub airports of each country. It is time to have a serious debate on the future regulatory structure for the global civil aviation industry. The resolution of the second issue necessitates that we revisit the current regulatory structure for the airline industry and consider moving away from bilateral Air Services Agreements to a multilateral framework for the industry. There are at least three different ways to proceed to address the issues related to subsidies, capacity dumping, and safeguards for the airline industry. While the multilateral approach is the preferred option, it is unrealistic to assume that there will be sufficient support to move quickly to multilateral negotiations. Nevertheless, it is important to begin to move in this direction, not only to resolve disputes such as the one between Canada and the UAE but also to be prepared to resolve future disputes that inevitably will arise. While Emirates Airlines executives have focused on the importance of consumer interests, there are many more stakeholders involved, and even consumer and taxpayer interests might not be best served by subsidies, capacity dumping, and arbitrary decisions to retaliate.
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.103 | 0.027 |
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".