Air Passenger Rights: The First Canadian Efforts…An Inauspicious Beginning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A recent Canadian legislative initiative, Bill C-310 (An Act to Provide Certain Rights to Air Passengers) would provide for compensation and care in the event of flight delays, cancellations or denied boarding. The bill was inspired by EC Regulation No. 261/2004 and by two bills before the U.S. Congress which bear the title, Airline Passenger Bill of Rights Act of 2009. Although Bill C-310 was tabled in Canada's Parliament in February 2009, there exists the possibility that Bill C-310 or legislative very similar to it will be passed by Canada's current Parliament. This article discusses the flaws of Bill C-310. The author argues that Bill C-310 borrows heavily from the text of the European and U.S. legislation, and thus Bill C-310's fit with existing Canadian legislation is awkward. The Bill's definitions do not harmonize well with existing laws and regulations, and its scope is overly broad and could put it into conflict with current laws. In addition, the passage of Bill C-310 could impose a strict liability regime for modes of transport other than the airlines. The Bill combines potentially incompatible delay provisions inspired from EC261/2004 with tarmac rights inspired by proposed U.S., legislation. Bill C-310 requires air carriers to pay administrative monetary penalties or compensation in 12 situations that other proposed or current laws do not, and sets much higher standards and compensation levels that any comparable legislation in two other provisions. The Bill also contains sections which potentially conflict with an international treaty signed by Canada. It also does not embrace the enforcement powers of the Canada Transportation Act, and does not recognize the Canada Transportation Agency for complaint resolution. The author concludes that the current bill needs to be substantially amended.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".