Beijing Reform of Criminal Air Law – Genesis, Essence and Recommendations (Pekińska reforma lotniczego prawa karnego – geneza, istota, rekomendacje)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
English Abstract: The article starts with a discussion on the present state of international criminal air law (the Tokyo Convention 1963, the Hague Convention 1970, the Montreal Convention 1971 and the Montreal Protocol 1988), including general characteristics of this law, key provisions of international treaties and their implementation in the national regime. Some inadequacies of current regulations are revealed. The second part concentrates on changes brought about by the Beijing Convention and the Beijing Protocol of 2010 concerning the scope of criminalisation, applicable law, jurisdiction, information obligations, extradition, non-discrimination and fair trial. The concluding part presents general remarks concerning the implementation of the Convention and the Protocol in Poland. Polish Abstract: Artykul poświecony jest problematyce lotniczego prawa karnego i aktualnym przemianom w tym zakresie. Autor podsumowuje biezący ksztalt systemu miedzynarodowego karnego prawa lotniczego i omawia jego ogolną charakterystyke, najwazniejsze postanowienia obowiązujących konwencji oraz wdrazające je przepisy krajowe. Ponadto wskazuje wady obowiązujących regulacji, ktore wymienia sie jako przeslanki reformy. W drugiej cześci opracowania autor opisuje nowatorskie rozwiązania aktow przyjetych podczas miedzynarodowej konferencji w Pekinie w 2010 r., tj. konwencji pekinskiej oraz protokolu pekinskiego, obecnie oczekujących na wejście w zycie oraz ratyfikacje w kraju. Podsumowanie artykulu stanowią rekomendacje i uwagi dotyczące implementacji tych aktow w Polsce. Obejmują one wskazania co do przyjecia pewnych rozwiązan fakultatywnych oraz ewentualnych zmian w prawie karnym.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".