Bibliographic record
Abstract
most aviation safety specialists worldwide have hailed the safety management system (SMS) as a key to further reduction of aircraft accidents. However, cautions recently have been expressed about overextension of the concept and about the risks of relaxing government oversight of operators as they struggle toward full SMS implementation. It is not surprising that most of the red flags have been raised in Canada, which is leading most of the world in aggressively pushing for SMS implementation by all aviation certificate holders in the country. Hoisting one of the red flags is Daniel Slunder, national chair of the Canadian Federal Pilots Association (CFPA), a union representing about 470 pilots employed by Transport Canada, Nav Canada and the Transportation Safety Board of Canada. Slunder contends that safety actually may suffer as self-regulating operators create a deluge of SMS paperwork that can conceal less-than-sterling practices. “Transport Canada describes SMS as a partnership: Industry agrees to take on more responsibility for ensuring compliance with safety requirements in exchange for less direct oversight by government inspectors,” Slunder said in a CFPA news release issued in July 2009. “As SMS has been introduced, however, key safety audit programs have been canceled,” he said. “In fact, Transport Canada recently canceled its practice of requiring a specific frequency of audits and inspection and replaced it with a program of SMS assessments and program validations.” The result, contends Slunder, is that few audits and inspections are being conducted to ensure compliance with regulations; the focus now is to ensure that operators have a functioning SMS in place.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.007 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".