Public Policies to Promote Regional Air Transport Experiences in Different Countries and Lessons for Developing Countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study discusses the application of government subsidies through public policies promoting regional transport. By analysing extant government intervention in the United States, Canada, Australia, Norway and Brazil, the text identifies commonalities in their objectives (the impossibility of economic self-sustainability of air services, lack of satisfactory land transport services, potential healthcare, educational and postal access by local populations, need for national integration, among others). However, the mechanisms of existing public policies in each country or group of countries (European Community) differ substantially according to the socio-cultural and economic elements present in each context. In the European Community, for example, regional air transport services are obligatory public services for all member countries (Public Service Obligations). Its mandatory minimum standards (Level of Services) are defined by the European Community. In parallel, The United States, for instance, has programmes such as Essential Air Services. On the other hand, in the developing or underdeveloped world, government support for regional transport is negligible. Paradoxically, in developing and underdeveloped countries, regional air transport's direct benefits and externalities are shown with greater vigour. This article brings together successful experiences in many countries that could be applied in the non-developed world.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".