MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The unmanned aerial vehicles in international trade and their regulation

2016· article· en· W2559624222 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueActual Problems of Economics and Law · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAerospace Engineering and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProtectionismInternational tradeChinaState (computer science)Trade regulationProduction (economics)Political scienceBusinessEconomicsLawComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: to review the current situation in production and distribution of unmanned aerial vehicles (further - UAVs) in developed countries, as well as the legal regulation issues.Methods: abstract-logic, summarizing and observation, comparative analysis.Results: The analysis of international trade in UAVs revealed the leading countries dominating the market: Israel, the USA and Canada. The leading importers are India, UK and France. China and Russian Federation are important producers but are just marginally involved in international trade, having rather protectionist trade policies. The characters of national regulatory frame- works vary significantly from country to country, while the Czech Republic belongs to the rather liberal group of EU members. Scientific novelty: So far, the journal publications in regard of UAVs have addressed uniquely technical issues and economic issues have been unattended. This paper clarifies the terminology mess, analyses trade policy issues, trade and production statistics and regulatory concerns linked to this steeply growing segment that is subject to double-use items regulations. Practical value: Given a lack of relevant publications focused on international trade in UAVs in particular, the paper provides a complex overview of current state of play in terms of this promising yet very controversial subject.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.719
Threshold uncertainty score0.118

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.176
Teacher spread0.167 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueActual Problems of Economics and LawSame topicAerospace Engineering and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207