MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1604778754 · doi:10.54648/aila2010047

The Continuing Development of Montreal Convention 1999 Jurisprudence

2010· article· en· W1604778754 on OpenAlex
George N. Tompkins

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

VenueAir and Space Law · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Law and Aviation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRatificationLiabilityConventionLawJurisprudencePolitical scienceState (computer science)Computer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Montreal Convention 1999 (MC99) replaces the 1929 Warsaw Convention (WC29). MC99 was adopted on 28 May 1999 and came into force on 4 November 2003 with the deposit of the thirtieth instrument of ratification by the United States on 5 September 2003. There are, as of 12 November 2010, nine-seven State Parties to MC99. The drafters of MC99 were vigilant in not changing the substantive wording of the principle liability rules of WC29, so as to preserve the validity of the seventy-five years of WC29 legal precedents for courts when applying the comparable liability rules of MC99. Since MC99 came into force, the courts interpreting and applying the MC99 liability rules have been ever cognizant of this intent of the drafters of MC99. This is the third article summarizing MC99 court decisions for the benefit of the readers of A&SL and this summary will appear each year as court decisions are rendered in the States Party to MC99 applying the MC99 liability rules.

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)0.000
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 score0.975
Threshold uncertainty score0.913

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.260 · 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