Questions of Interpretation and Application of the 1971 Montreal Convention arising from the Aerial Incident at Lockerbie (Libya v. United Kingdom)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter describes the evolution of the history of the case concerning questions of interpretation and application of the 1971 Montreal Convention Arising from the Aerial Incident at Lockerbie and advisory opinions that has been dealt by the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The case is systematically organized, the final question by the parties, basis of jurisdiction, proceedings, orders rendered by the Court, head notes and operative paragraphs of the judgments, orders and advisory opinions, names of judges and ad hoc judges who have appended declaration individually with other judges. The analysis section covers patterns of analysis, duration of cases and advisory opinions of the Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ) and the ICJ; records of states as applicant(s) and/ or respondent(s); records of states and authorised organisations on written and oral statements; and records of declarations and opinions of judges and judge ad hoc . Keywords: International Court of Justice (ICJ); jurisdiction; Lockerbie; Montreal Convention; Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ)
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 | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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.
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".