La compatibilità del regolamento (CE) n. 261/2004 con la convenzione di Montreal del 1999 in una recente pronuncia della Corte di giustizia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.027 | 0.003 |
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".