Keeping up with the neighbours? Reviewing national space laws to account for new technology - The Australian and Canadian experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The development of space-related technology since the dawn of the space age in 1957 has given rise to many new and exciting possibilities. It has also meant that space activities continue to evolve, facilitating the participation of a variety of space ‘actors’ other than States. Given the international responsibility of States for ‘national activities in outer space’ under both customary international law and the Outer Space Treaty, there is an imperative for States to enact relevant and contemporary national space law to regulate those non-governmental space actors within their respective jurisdiction. But enacting national space law is not enough – as the paradigm of space-related technology changes and evolves, it is clear that such shifts require the ongoing review of appropriate national regulatory standards over relatively short timeframes. National legislatures have to come to grips with the ever-changing range of space technology, particularly if they wish to become increasingly involved in space activities. Whatever rules are put in place during the review process must find the right balance between, on the one hand, the need for regulation of the economic and technical elements, so as to minimise the risks to an acceptable level, and the facilitation of research and innovation to allow for greater and more efficient access to space, and the potential for commercial returns, on the other. This paper will describe this process of review and rejuvenation of existing national space laws in both Australia and Canada, outlining the relevant factors that were taken into account in order to maximise the utility of the regulations to meet the specific goals and requirements within each country.<br/>
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 | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".