Bibliographic record
Abstract
As aviation industry had developed significantly, crime against aircraft also increased. Especially since hijacking of civil aviation has increased from early 1960s, Convention on offences and certain other acts committed on board aircraft which is Tokyo Convention was adopted in 1963 but it was inadequate to cover hijacking problems. Since then, Convention for the suppression of unlaw seizure of aircraft, Hague Convention(1970), Convention for the suppression of unlawful act against the safety of civil aviation, Montreal Convention(1971), Protocol for the suppression of unlawful acts of violence at airports serving international civil aviation, supplementary to the convention for the suppression of unlawful act against the safety of civil aviation, Montreal Protocol(1988), Convention on the marking of plastic explosive for the purpose of detection(1991) were adopted one by one. Despite the efforts to prevent offences against civil aircraft, these conventions were not enough to cover new types of offence. As a result, diplomatic conference meeting was held from August 30 to September 10 in Beijing. They adopted two new treaties devoted to improving aviation security, Beijing Convention and Beijing Protocol. Beijjing Convention is amendment to Montreal Convention and Montreal Protocol and Beijing protocol is supplementary to the Hague Convention. This paper will focus on comparing with Beijing Protocol and The Hague Convention. There are two major point of Beijing Protocol. First, this protocol expands application of offence. In case of criminalize in accomplice. Second, this protocol clarify rules of extradition and liabilities that State Parties should follow. The Beijing Protocol will strengthen the existing international legal framework and facilitate the prosecution and extradition of those who seek to commit acts of terror.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.045 | 0.017 |
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".