International protection of civil aviation safety (in particular against acts endangering the safety of aviation)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
International protection of civil aviation safety(in particular against acts endangering the safety of aviation). This work deals with issues of the current scope of the international means of protection of civil aviation safety against acts which immediately threaten the safety of air transport. The work is based on the thesis that, through the available international instruments, the safety of civil aviation cannot be ensured. It seems that in practice the appropriate permission takes over UN Security Council, which its resolutions shall establish appropriate sanctions against States that support terrorism are guilty. The UN Security Council by its resolutions No. 731, 748 and 883 and 1192 created a precedent for the avoidance of any negotiations with terrorists, as provided for in the Montreal Convention. Through article 24 of the Charter of the United Nations is entitled to accept the UN Security Council resolution, which opposed the established multilateral antiterrorism Convention in the background. International protection of the safety of civil aviation is fragmented and does not meet the conditions of civil aviation in the atmosphere of 21 st. century. The optimal solution would be that States have established definitively, universally accepted definition of terrorism, which would become even...
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.028 | 0.012 |
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".