MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3169699890

Suborbital Flights and the Delimitation of Air Space Vis-à-Vis Outer Space: Functionalism, Spatialism and State Sovereignty

2017· article· en· W3169699890 on OpenAlexaff
Paul Stephen Dempsey, Maria Manoli

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicSpace exploration and regulation
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpace (punctuation)Outer spaceSpace lawSovereigntyFunctionalism (philosophy of mind)DilemmaLawPolitical sciencePrincipal (computer security)Law and economicsSociologyEpistemologyComputer sciencePhilosophyComputer security
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The article examines the definition and delimitation of outer space and its relationship to air space, and proposes a remedy to the uncertainty created by the significant differences in the Air Law and Space Law regimes. COPUOS and the academic community have discussed and debated the issue of the definition and delimitation between air space and outer space for more than five decades, without achieving consensus. This article examines the relationship between this issue and the definition of suborbital flights for scientific and/or for human transportation. The principal purpose of this article is to summarise the theories and approaches that have been proposed on this topic, and the legal regime(s) that apply to such flights. This article ultimately proposes a solution to the dilemma as to where the altitudinal lines between air space and outer space should be drawn, which in turn will clarify the jurisdictional lines between Air Law and Space Law.

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 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)0.001
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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score0.478

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations7
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic JournalSame topicSpace exploration and regulationFrench-language works237,207