MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7055130290

Commerce dans le secteur aéronautique et crash d'avions : une approche gravitaire

2022· other· fr· W7055130290 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueArchipelago (University of Quebec in Montreal) · 2022
Typeother
Languagefr
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Frequency and Time Standards
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCrashAccident (philosophy)Cost cutting
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ce mémoire s’intéresse aux effets que pourraient avoir des accidents ou crashs d’avions sur le commerce international des avions de ligne. La motivation à la base de ce travail empirique est que de tels désastres peuvent ternir la réputation des constructeurs d’avions et réduire leurs ventes. Notre approche permet de voir tout d’abord qu’en moyenne 90 % des exportations d’avions au niveau mondial proviennent de seulement six pays (Allemagne, Brésil, Canada, Espagne, États-Unis, France), que nous avons appariés aux constructeurs suivants : Airbus, ATR, Boeing, Bombardier, Embraer et McDonnell Douglas. Pour évaluer l’effet des accidents sur les flux de commerce entre pays, nous nous servons d’un modèle de gravité dans lequel nous tenons compte de déterminants fondamentaux du commerce international tels que le PIB, la distance, les liens coloniaux, la langue, etc. Nos résultats montrent, compte tenu de la période que nous considérons (1996-2014), qu’il n’y a pas d’effet significatif des accidents sur les flux de commerce d’avions. Un tel résultat peut s’expliquer par le fait que beaucoup de causes sont possibles lors des accidents et que ceux-ci ne sont pas toujours imputables aux constructeurs.
\n_____________________________________________________________________________ 
\nMOTS-CLÉS DE L’AUTEUR : Accident aérien, crash, commerce bilatéral.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.353
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.201 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchipelago (University of Quebec in Montreal)Same topicAdvanced Frequency and Time StandardsFrench-language works237,207