MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3914433

A review of the international experience of airline deregulation

2008· review· en· W3914433 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Natália dos Santos Ferreira, German Alberto Barragán De Los Rios, Miguelangelo Geimba de Lima

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Transport Literature · 2008
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicAviation Industry Analysis and Trends
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeregulationLiberalizationOrder (exchange)Competition (biology)International tradeConsumer welfareInternational economicsAviationWelfareBusinessEuropean unionLow-cost carrierMarket structureAir transportEconomicsIndustrial organizationMarket economyFinanceMarketingEngineeringTransport engineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper aims at comparing the evolution of the regulatory framework for air transportation in the USA, European Union (EU), Canada, Mexico, Chile, India and Australia, in order to assess the impacts of deregulation on market structure, fares and consumer welfare. The authors reach the conclusion that, for the USA, EU and Canada, the liberalization led to an increase of competition, mainly stimulated by low-cost carriers, and the consumers have benefited for smaller tariffs and more options for choosing airlines, times, frequencies and routes. With regards to other countries, this study found that, in the short term, deregulation led to moderate benefits for industry and consumers while, in the long term, there is some evidence of increasing market concentration and higher airfares.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.013
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.238 · 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
GenreReview

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
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Transport LiteratureSame topicAviation Industry Analysis and TrendsFrench-language works237,207