MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1484255849 · doi:10.54648/aila2011014

The Montreal Convention 1999 and the Decisions of the ECJ in the Cases of <i>IATA</i> and <i>Sturgeon</i> in Harmony or Discord?

2011· article· en· W1484255849 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Robert F. Lawson, Tim Marland

Bibliographic record

VenueAir and Space Law · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Law and Aviation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConventionHarmony (color)CarriageSturgeonLawPolitical scienceGeographyFisheryBiologyFish <Actinopterygii>Archaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article considers Regulation (EC) No. 261/2004 in so far as it deals with delay in the carriage by air of passengers, as interpreted by the European Court of Justice in the cases of R. ( on the application of International Air Transport Association and European Low Fares Airline Association) v. Department of Transport and Sturgeon v. Condor Flugdienst GmbH and Böck v. Air France SA . It considers whether these two cases are consistent with each other and with the Montreal Convention (in respect of carriage to which the Convention and Regulation 261 both apply). It concludes that they are irreconcilable with each other and that if the IATA case is consistent with the Montreal Convention, as it purports to be, then Sturgeon is not.

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)0.001
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.806
Threshold uncertainty score0.915

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAir and Space LawSame topicInternational Law and AviationFrench-language works237,207