MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7084761696 · doi:10.4224/40003780

Quantitative assessment of 2017-2018 Canadian air traffic and validation of air risk classes

2025· report· en· W7084761696 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout

Bibliographic record

VenueNPARC · 2025
Typereport
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicFood, Nutrition, and Cultural Practices
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
FundersNational Research Council CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaTransport Canada
KeywordsAir traffic controlRisk assessmentRulemakingQuantitative assessmentSoftware deploymentProcess (computing)Work (physics)Quantitative analysis (chemistry)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In recent years, the Canadian airspace has experienced a significant rise in the deployment of remotely piloted aircraft systems (RPAS) across various industries, from remote sensing to package delivery. To regulate these operations, TC has adapted the Specific Operations Risk Assessment (SORA) process [3], originally developed by the Joint Authorities for Rulemaking on Unmanned Systems (JARUS), to establish a structured risk assessment procedure for Canadian operators. This tailored process was released in Advisory Circular (AC) 903-001 [1], which primarily focuses on assessing risks associated with beyond visual line of sight (BVLOS) operations in the Canadian airspace. The risk evaluation encompasses a thorough examination of operational airspace, accounting for factors such as airspace class and the expected frequency of encounters with traditional aviation.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.208

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0080.006
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2025
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNPARCSame topicFood, Nutrition, and Cultural PracticesFrench-language works237,207