Bibliographic record
Abstract
2004년 7월에 항공법 개정안이 발표되었는데 그 주요 제안이유는 현행 항공법중 그 내용이 객관적이고 독립적인 항공사고 조사분야를 항공사고조사에 관한 분법하고, 최근 항공안전 강화추세에 따라 빈번하게 개정되고 있는 국제민간항공 조약 부속서의 표준 및 권고사항에 신속하게 대처할 수 있도록 그 근거규정은 법률로 정하고 세부기술적인 사항은 하위법령에서 정하도록 하며, 그 간 제도운영과정에서 나타난 일부 미비점을 보완하려 하고 있다. 이러한 항공법 개정의 변화과정에 대한 논의와 외국의 항공법 체계와 국내항공법의 체계비교를 통하여 국내항공법의 개정 변화에 대한 추이를 살펴보고자 한다. 본 조사 결과 대부분 국가가 항공사고조사법을 분리하고 있기 때문에 현행 항공법을 항공법과 항공사고조사법으로 분법하려는 추진방향을 세운 것처럼 생각된다. 현행 항공법에서는 권리제한이나 의무부과, 인허가 관련 기본적인 사항만 정하고 나머지 세부적인 사항은 국제기준의 변경에 신속히 대응할 수 있도록 하위법령에서 정할 수 있도록 근거를 마련하는 방향으로 가닥을 잡아가고 있다. 이러한 흐름에 맞추어 국제표준과 항공선진국으로서의 위상에 걸맞고 급변하는 세계항공운송의 흐름에 순행하는 항공법을 제정하는 지혜를 모아야 할 것이다. 【The Reform Aviation Act of 2004 that which devided the basic aviation act and the act related aviation accident investigation announced in July 2004. The purpose of this study is to review standards and recommendations of Annexes for International Civil Aviation Convention and CFR of FAA in USA, Aviation Act of Japan, Civil Aviation Act of Australia, Aeronautics Act of Canada, Air Navigation Act of Singapore. and then after these review, we tried to compare them with Korean Aviation Law, Enforcement Decree, Regulations related their system. At the result of this study, we find out many advanced countries divided into basic Aviation act and accident investigation act. finally we have suggested mid and longtern plan and implementation which applicable to set up domestic aviation law system.】
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.003 |
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".