Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study was performed with two main goals in mind. The first objective is to identify the existing problems with current systems and the way they handle the criminal proceedings following an aviation accident. The second goal is to study the need for a unified system which could diminish uncertainty and enhance safety with a growth of trust within and in between the industry and the judiciary. Research and studies performed by many esteemed well-recognized personnel involved in the industry, ranging from lawyers to professors as well as aviation professionals were used in this paper. A comparison was also made between the differentiating legal systems, and examples have been used in order to portray the dilemma that the industry is facing. This led to the illustration of the huge gap in the industry and the reasons behind the second aim of this research, that being the need for a unified balanced system in the aftermath of an accident investigation where it is found that criminal proceedings need to be pursued in the light of the revelations made by the accident report. The findings of this study strongly suggest that there exists a gap in the industry of aviation, which, instead of enhancing safety, is standing in the way of the maintenance and the growth of safety of commercial aviation. The many differentiating national legal systems have adopted diverse rules and regulation on matters dealing with aviation (i.e., the investigation process, whether the technical investigation has priority over the judicial one or vice versa, the procedure of collecting and analyzing evidence, voluntary/mandatory reporting systems, anonymity of voluntarily reporting personnel, public disclosure of data and evidence, etc.). In order to be able to tackle these obstacles ICAO needs to play a more proactive role in the unification of laws, rules, and procedures regulating the industry and the procedure used by all involved personnel in the aftermath of an aviation accident or incident. States also need to be more proactive in their adoption of ICAO Standards and Recommended practices rather than simply applying national rules and regulations, which mirror the minimum standards required. In this sense data, evidence, testimonies and identities of voluntary reporters need to be taken more seriously and afforded at a global stage. There is also a need for an international tribunal with a panel of judges who are educated and experienced in the aviation industry, and who are surrounded by the expertise needed for the comprehension of the technical and complex issues, which arise from criminal proceedings in the aftermath of an aviation catastrophe. This could help the determination of what kind of acts or omissions qualify for criminal prosecution, as well as the protection of classified and sensitive information from being leaked to the public and the media. It could also prove to be less prejudicial and more just creating a safe environment for reporters of errors and mistakes as political, social, and media pressure will not interfere in the investigation or the proceedings before the aforementioned tribunal.
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 | 0.004 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
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.
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".