La responsabilité des controleurs aériens dans les systèmes américain et français /
Bibliographic record
Abstract
At the international level, standards and recommended practices adopted by the ICAO have settled the general framework followed by States in the provision of ATC services. However, as those international instruments have no binding effect, liability of air traffic controllers is governed by national regulations. Therefore, if in both the United States and France the liability regime is based on fault, nevertheless the nature of the fault and the one of the duties of air traffic controllers, as determined by the courts of each States, differ. This lack of uniformity is also obvious regarding the comparison between controllers' and pilots' liabilities. To mitigate the consequences of the deficiency of harmonisation, taking into account technical improvements inherent to the field of ATC and, broadly, to air navigation, two solutions have been suggested. The first one, Free flight, is still under study whereby the second one, privatisation, has already been successfully implemented in several countries and, while being strongly considered by the French government, has by now been initiated by the American one. However, we will have no option but to ascertain that such solutions will not solve the problem pertaining to disparities of regulations and holding of the courts on the matter of air traffic controllers' liability.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.031 | 0.010 |
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".