MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2755354040 · doi:10.33423/jabe.v20i6.381

Slowdown Aviation and Modernity’s Lost Dynamism

2018· article· en· W2755354040 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Saifedean Ammous

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Business and Economics · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicSpace exploration and regulation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDynamismAviationPoliticsSlowdownState (computer science)ModernitySAFERPolitical sciencePolitical economyMarket economyAeronauticsEconomyEconomicsEngineeringLawComputer scienceAerospace engineeringComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The inevitability of technological progress is one of the most widely-held beliefs of our era but there is one very important field in which technological progress appears not only to have stagnated but reversed. Examining the technical and commercial reality of modern aviation, there are three objective markers of slowdown. First, airplanes operational today can no longer reach the speed and altitude records set four decades ago. Second, commercial flight times have not only failed to get shorter, they actually take longer than they did in the past. Third, forty years after its introduction, supersonic flight is no longer available for civilians, neither in commercial nor private jets. While flight today is safer, cheaper, and more widespread than in the past, it has become slower, and jet makers are strangely not even interested in exploring ways of making it faster. The paper concludes with a discussion of the cultural, political, economic, and institutional reasons behind this slowdown. The receding state of the art in aviation acts as both an object lesson and a warning for the state of economic dynamism overall.

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 score0.428
Threshold uncertainty score0.228

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 head0.199
Teacher spread0.191 · 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied Business and EconomicsSame topicSpace exploration and regulationFrench-language works237,207