MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3005518511 · doi:10.54648/aila2020005

The Outcome of the 40th ICAO Assembly: A New Look at ICAO?

2020· article· en· W3005518511 on OpenAlex
Ruwantissa Abeyratne

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueAir and Space Law · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Law and Aviation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCivil aviationAviationAviation lawConventionContext (archaeology)PaceEngineeringPolitical scienceAeronauticsAviation engineeringTransparency (behavior)LawManagementHistoryGeographyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The 40th Session of the triennial Assembly of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) took place in Montreal from 24 September to 4 October 2019. Notably, 2019 marked some important milestones in aviation: the 100th anniversary of the Paris Convention relating to the regulation of aerial navigation, signed on 13 October 1919; the 90th anniversary of the Warsaw Convention for the unification of certain rules relating to international carriage by air, signed at on 12 October 1929; and the 75th anniversary of the Convention on International Civil Aviation (Chicago Convention), signed on 7 December 1944. In the aviation context, 2019 was truly a year which called for reflection by the Assembly. The Assembly was also significant in its general theme of implementing the mantra of ICAO: ‘no country left behind’, through both a prospective and retrospective look at the performance of the Organization, as epitomised by a compelling working paper submitted by the United States at the Assembly. The article noted that ICAO’s traditional business practices may not keep up with the rapid pace in which the aviation industry is developing. It therefore exhorted ICAO to deliver through transparency for inclusiveness and better decision making; a positive work environment for high performance; leveraging partnerships for a better future; demonstration that it delivers what Member States need on a timely basis and uses all available resources for the greatest benefit to Member States and the aviation sector in a cost-effective manner; and the expansion of resources for delivery. This article examines this theme through the prism of some Resolutions adopted by the Assembly and inquires into what ICAO should do. ICAO, organizational efficiency; aviation; air transport; business planning

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.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.975
Threshold uncertainty score0.864

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.268 · 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