MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7001964097

A level playing field for "open skies": the need for consistent and harmonized regulation of Aviation

2015· dissertation· en· W7001964097 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueeScholarship@McGill (McGill) · 2015
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeuroendocrine Tumor Research Advances
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersOffice of the Secretary of TransportationU.S. Department of TransportationYale UniversityUniversity of CambridgeMcGill UniversityRaymond and Beverly Sackler Institute for Biological, Physical and Engineering Sciences, Yale University
KeywordsAviationJurisdictionOpen skiesScope (computer science)European unionAviation lawCommercial aviationProduct (mathematics)State (computer science)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Various initiatives by regulators in different jurisdictions over the past two decades have completely reshaped the airline industry in ways that were unimaginable in 1992.From an industry dominated by Pan Am and Trans World Airlines (TWA), and newly privatized airlines such as British Airways, today's industry is dominated by government-owned intercontinental airlines based in the Middle East and carrying passengers the majority of whom are ultimately destined for States other than the States where the airlines are based.Insufficient thought has been given to whether this evolution is desirable, whether it involves profound competitive distortions or whether it is in the public interest that the majority of Australians visiting Europe are carried by an airline based in neither jurisdiction or that a similar claim might be made with respect to traffic between South Asia and the Americas.This thesis examines the events that have reshaped the international aviation industry over the two decades between 1992 and 2012.It will critically analyze the major developments and the regulatory responses and highlight some of the incompatible and disjointed regulations that are in effect at either end of international routes.It ultimately proposes that Australia, Canada, the European Union (EU), New Zealand and the United States (US) form a small international organization, to be known as the Open Skies International Aviation Block (OSIAB).OSIAB would be based on expanding the membership of the US-EU Joint Committee foreseen in the 2007 US-EU Open Skies Agreement and expanding its scope to cover every aspect of the regulation of international commercial aviation.This thesis argues such a forum is necessary to ensure that regulations in different countries are aligned so that competitive distortions potentially caused by regulatory disharmony are minimized, thus allowing the international airline industry to compete on the level international playing field that so many international agreements have promised to create. RÉSUMÉAu cours des deux dernières décennies, diverses initiatives prises par les autorités de régulation de différents pays ont entièrement remodelé le secteur du transport aérien d'une manière qui était inimaginable en 1992.D'une industrie dominée par des compagnies aériennes privées telles que Pan Am et TWA ou nouvellement privatisées, telles que British Airways, l'industrie aérienne actuelle est dominée par des compagnies aériennes intercontinentales basées au Moyen-Orient, détenues par les États, et transportant des passagers dont la majorité ne désire pas visiter le pays dans lequel la compagnie est établie.Peu de réflexions ont été menées sur la question de savoir si cette évolution est souhaitable, si elle entraine de profondes distorsions de la concurrence ou s'il est conforme à l'intérêt public que la majorité des Australiens visitant l'Europe soient transportés par une compagnie aérienne établie dans un pays autre que ces deux territoires, ou qu'une affirmation similaire puisse être exprimée en ce qui concerne le trafic entre l'Asie du Sud et les Amériques.En outre, dans la mesure où cette évolution soulève des problèmes d'ordre réglementaire, ces questions seraient mieux gérées au sein d'un organisme multilatéral.La présente thèse couvre les deux décennies de 1992 à 2012, et étudie les événements qui ont transformé l'industrie aérienne internationale au cours de cette période.Elle analyse de façon critique les principaux développements et les mesures réglementaires connexes, et met en évidence l'incompatibilité et l'incohérence de certaines règlementations actuellement en vigueur à chaque extrémité des liaisons internationales.Elle propose que l'Australie, le Canada, l'Union européenne, la Nouvelle-Zélande et les États-Unis forment une organisation internationale, dénommée « Bloc des cieux ouverts d'aviation internationale » (« BCOAI ») aux fins de cette discussion.BCOAI se fonderait d'une part sur l'augmentation du nombre d'adhésions au Comité mixte UE-US prévu dans le cadre de l'Accord Ciel Ouvert entre les États-Unis et l'UE de 2007, et d'autre part sur l'élargissement de sa compétence à tous les aspects de la réglementation de l'aviation internationale.Il y est soutenu qu'une telle organisation s'avère nécessaire pour s'assurer que les réglementations des différents pays soient uniformisées et que les distorsions de concurrence soient minimisées, permettant ainsi une concurrence internationale saine entre les acteurs du transport aérien international, pourtant déjà promise par tant d'accords internationaux.that my Doctorate is one of the most collective achievements of my lifetime.First I want to thank my loving wife, Noreen Mazorra, for supporting me at all stages of my doctorate.She supported: my departure from the work world to that of academe; a move for two years from Ottawa to Montreal (where she found me an apartment

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)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.099

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.025
Scholarly communication0.0160.015
Open science0.0020.007
Research integrity0.0090.017
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.088
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeScholarship@McGill (McGill)→Same topicNeuroendocrine Tumor Research Advances→French-language works237,207→