Apectos jurídicos principales de las aeronaves no tripuladas. Consideraciones críticas. / Main legal aspects of unmanned aircraft. Critical considerations.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Los UAS son aeronaves sui generis que se someten, así, al régimen genérico de estas. No obstante, hay peculiaridades que imponen reglamento específico, siendo necesaria la edición de Convención internacional que dé uniformidad a la materia, de modo que albergue en clara actividad de riesgo, niveles de seguridad idénticos a las aeronaves convencionales, con la finalidad de utilización del espacio aéreo no segregado. En ese contexto, se impone la utilización de sistemas de prevención superadores del binomio see and avoid, abarcando la nanotecnología, sin descuidar de los derechos fundamentales. Finalmente, en el ámbito de la responsabilidad por daños a terceros en la superficie, las bases de cálculo de indemnización establecidas en la Convención de Roma y Protocolo de Montreal, son absolutamente incompatibles con la realidad fáctica de los UAS y del régimen de responsabilidad extracontractual objetiva. ABSTRACTThe UAS are ‘sui generis’ aircrafts that submit themselves, therefore, to the general regime of those. Regardless of it, there are some peculiarities that impose specific regulation, being necessary the creation of an international Convention capable of standardize the subject, in order to be considered as a clear risk activity (strict liability system), hence imposing the same security standards as the ones of conventional airplanes, aiming the use of non-segregated airspace. In this context, the use of prevention systems that surpasses the binomial ‘see and avoid’ imposes itself, embracing nanotechnology, without ignoring fundamental rights. Finally, in scope of the liability related to damages to third parties in surface, the basis of calculation regarding the compensation provided by the Rome Convention and the Montreal Protocol are absolutely incompatible with the factual reality of the UAS and strict liability related to tort rules.
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 | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.016 | 0.018 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.003 |
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".