MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2610771774 · doi:10.2307/j.ctt1w1vmdn.13

United States Participation in Drafting Paris Convention 1919

2017· book-chapter· en· W2610771774 on OpenAlexaff
John Cooper

Bibliographic record

VenueMQUP eBooks · 2017
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicConflict of Laws and Jurisdiction
Canadian institutionsInternational Air Transport Association
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConventionPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

T HE extent of United States participation in the preparation and drafting of the Convention relating to the Regulation of Aerial Navigation (Paris 1919) has been little appreciated.The fact that the United States signed this convention but did not ratify it is well known.But the more important fact that its delegates took a leading part in urging the adoption of certain of the basic principles of the convention, and that its representative on the Legal Subcommission cast a crucial deciding vote which may have changed much of the subsequent development of the international law of commercial entry of the aircraft of one contracting State into the territory of another, is practically unknown.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.057
Threshold uncertainty score0.119

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0060.006
Scholarly communication0.0080.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0040.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.004

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.292 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations6
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMQUP eBooksSame topicConflict of Laws and JurisdictionFrench-language works237,207