Bibliographic record
Abstract
Unlawful aircraft seizures have assumed proportions sufficient enough to engage the attention of the entire world community. Participants in international terrorism at all levels often use civil aviation for its intended purpose of transportation. Civil aviation is the fastest and most convenient means of concealed transit. The current active convergence of international terrorism and transnational organized crime is a relatively new factor in the sphere of indirect threats to aviation security. The instances in the history of aviation like that of Kanishka flight (Air India 182) bombed, Air France hijacked, Lockerbie, etc and more recently the Malaysian Airline MH370 disaster further rises the concern of international aviation security and rights of the victims affected. This paper will deal with the several international aviation safety and security issues arising and the existing conventions like Montreal Convention, Bonn Convention, Warsaw Convention, International Civil Aviation Organization and other norms regulating it. This paper will also provide suggestion to improve and reduce the air disasters which appear to happen more frequently these days. More specifically this paper will relate all the above to the incident of Indian Airlines Flight 814 commonly known as IC814 en route from Nepal to Delhi, India on 24 December 1999, when it was hijacked. Harkat-ul-Mujahideen, a Pakistan based Islamic extremist group, was accused of the hijacking. The motive for the hijacking was to secure the release of Islamist figures held in prison in India. The hostage crisis ended after India agreed to release three militants, who have since then, been implicated in other terrorist actions, such as 9/11, the kidnap and murder of Daniel Pearl and Mumbai terror attacks.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".