MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3124652069 · doi:10.25148/lawrev.10.2.9

Federal Preemption of State Regulation of Airline Pricing, Routes, and Services: The Airline Deregulation Act

2015· article· en· W3124652069 on OpenAlexaff
Paul Stephen Dempsey

Bibliographic record

VenueFIU Law Review · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicTransport and Economic Policies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPreemptionDeregulationFederal preemptionBusinessState (computer science)International tradeIndustrial organizationEconomicsMarket economyState lawComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 (ADA) included an explicit preemption clause to prevent the states from re-imposing economic regulation on the airline industry.However, that legislation left untouched a provision in the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 which preserved common law remedies.Conflicts between states and passengers, on the one hand, and airlines, on the other, have been fought in federal courts on numerous occasions, and three cases have made their way up to the United States Supreme Court.This article discusses that jurisprudence.State law is preempted by federal law under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. 1 Article VI, clause 2, of the U.S. Constitution (the Supremacy Clause) provides: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. 2The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution "invalidates any state law that contradicts or interferes with an Act of Congress."3 As one commentator observed, "[t]he power of the federal government to displace state law in those areas in which Congress has the ability to legislate is a potent one; it divests states of the ability to regulate in an area within the state's domain."4 The intent of Congress becomes the focus in such analysis.With the gradual recognition of the legitimacy of state police powers, and deferential

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.097
Threshold uncertainty score0.194

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0070.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.208 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFIU Law ReviewSame topicTransport and Economic PoliciesFrench-language works237,207