The Air Carrier's Liability for Passenger Damages, -Article 17 of the Warsaw System and the new Montreal Convention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to International Carriage by Air, the Warsaw Convention, was completed in 1929.The major purpose of the Convention was, as the Convention's title reveals, to unify the private law rules that regulate the aviation business, thereby avoiding major conflicts of law and conflicts of jurisdiction.A second purpose of the Convention was to protect the infant and financially weak aviation industry from disastrous claims by injured passengers.The Warsaw Convention therefore established a fault based liability system with a reversed burden of proof, with a fixed monetary limitation on the imposed liability.The liability provisions constitute the core subject of the Convention but have, because of the limited possibilities of economic recovery, also extorted several legal instruments and unilateral private agreements to amend the Convention.The co-existence of these amendments and agreements has created confusion among the signatory states as to which rules that apply.In order to modernize the rules and to end the confusion caused by the multiplicity of instruments a new Convention was adopted in Montreal on 28 May 1999.The new Montreal Convention will come into force when thirty states have ratified it.
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 | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
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".