The Continuing Development of Montreal Convention 1999 Jurisprudence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.025 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 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".