MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W151157570

La compatibilità del regolamento (CE) n. 261/2004 con la convenzione di Montreal del 1999 in una recente pronuncia della Corte di giustizia

2013· article· it· W151157570 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueRivista di diritto internazionale privato e processuale · 2013
Typearticle
Languageit
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicLegal and Labor Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical scienceArtGeography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

1. I rapporti tra la disciplina comunitaria e la convenzione di Montreal del 1999.- 2. La sentenza della Corte di giustizia nelle cause riunite Nelson e Tui Travel. Il diritto alla compensazione pecuniaria di cui all'art. 7 del regolamento(CE) n.261/2004 in caso di volo ritardato.- 3. Segue: la compatibilita di tale diritto con la disciplina del risarcimento del da ritardo nel trasporto aereo di cui alla convenzione di Montreal.- 4. Segue: la diversa natura del disagio contemplato dalla disciplina comunitaria e del danno previsto dell'art. 19 della convenzione di Montreal.- 5. Segue: la mancanza di un nesso di causalita tra il ritardo effettivo e il disagio perdita di tempo.- 6. La dubbia compatibilita della disciplina comunitaria dei diritti del passeggero di un volo ritardato con quella di cui alla convenzione di Montreal.- 7. Considerazione conclusive.

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.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.356
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.227 · 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