International protection of civil aviation safety (in particular against acts endangering the safety of aviation)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study deals with the international civil aviation safety purely in the sense of,,security" which means protection against acts of unlawful interference against civil aviation. The thesis is composed of ten chapters. Chapter two is introductory and defines basic notions as aircraft piracy or aviation terrorism. Chapter three characterises main forms of acts of unlawful interference against civil aviation as they were regarded in the past as well as in nowadays. Chapter four is concerned with legal sources of the International Aviation Law. Chapter five describes origins of the international repressive system and provides interpretation of the most important international antiterrorism conventions. Chapter six focuses on the exercise of juridiction and extradition under the Tokyo Convention from 1963, the Hague Convention from 1970 and the Montreal Convention from 1971. The classification of unlawful acts against the civil aviation based on the responsibility for such acts is the object of the chapter seven.Chapter eight is the overview of safety standards and recommendations which have been made by international organizations. Chapter nine is talking about the preventive system of the aviation and contains two parts. First part speaks about its general principles and second part is dealing with the...
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.006 |
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".