Are the Objectives of the 1999 Montreal Convention in Danger of Failure?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article is taken from a talk given by the author at a Symposium in Ankara, Turkey, on 15-16 November 2013. In the opinion of the author, the objectives sought to be achieved by the Montreal Convention of 1999 [MC99], which was drafted and adopted to consolidate in one instrument and replace the patchwork "Warsaw System", are being thwarted by a number of national, regional and international developments which have evolved since MC99 came into force on 4 November 2003. Hopefully, this article will be seen and accepted by all concerned as a "clarion call" to take action to ensure that MC99 does not fail of purpose due to these developments which, if not acted upon and reversed, present a "clear and present" danger that MC99 may very well fail of its intended purpose.
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 | 0.021 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".