Bibliographic record
Abstract
The debate on subsidies in air transport has been closely associated with State aid that is allegedly calculated to enable carriers – in particular carriers such as Emirates, Etihad and Qatar – to distort markets and engage in anticompetitive conduct. Some carriers in competition with these three carriers have alleged that the two carriers of the United Arab Emirates and Qatar are unfairly depriving the carriers of the West of their “market share” by moving into the American and the European markets with undue and unfair advantages granted to them by their States. A lobby group representing the three major airlines that brought the complaint against the Gulf carriers – American Airlines, Delta and United Airlines – has said that the three carriers of the United Arab Emirates and Qatar have received $42 billion in subsidies and other benefits. The claim further alleges that, over the past decade, the three Middle East carriers have spent more than $100 billion on acquiring bloated fleets of modern wide-body aircraft. The request of the three American carriers was that the “open skies” agreements between the United States and the United Arab Emirates and between the United States and Qatar be “renegotiated” and modified, as the alleged subsidies had distorted international trade. This article discusses the legal regime pertaining to subsidies in air transport against the backdrop of this debate and evaluates the positions of the key players, including the International Civil Aviation Organization, the World Trade Organization and the airlines concerned.
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 | 0.006 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.017 | 0.015 |
| 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".