MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7161939936 · doi:10.82308/41681

The legal framework related to the privatization and commercialization of remote sensing satellites in the United States and in Canada /

2006· dissertation· en· W7161939936 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Vicky. Chouinard

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicSpace exploration and regulation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCommercializationGovernment (linguistics)Earth observation satelliteEarth observationSatelliteSpace lawSpace (punctuation)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This Thesis deals with the national legal aspects of a particular space application: remote sensing by satellites, also referred to as earth observation systems. Governments have been the leading providers and users of satellite imagery data since the advent of earth observation satellites (i.e. almost 40 years ago). However, this has changed, particularly in the United States, with several private companies having acquired and launched their own imaging satellite systems. This new trend towards commercialization and privatization of the remote sensing industry, which appeared firstly in the United States and which is now being extended to Canada, required a change in policy. The role played by the government policies and regulations in shaping the prospects for the emerging commercial remote sensing satellite firms is of critical importance. In this context, these policies and regulations will determine the conditions that will enable commercial firms to realize their competitive potential in both the domestic and international marketplace. In this Thesis, a brief overview of the technical and historical legal backgrounds of remote sensing is provided. Then, the international legal framework of remote sensing is briefly analyzed. Finally, a thorough analysis of the policies, laws and regulations applicable within the United States and Canada is presented.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.364
Threshold uncertainty score0.323

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.233 · 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.

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
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSpace exploration and regulationFrench-language works237,207