<i>Ma Meilan v. Thai Airways International Public Company Limited</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Warsaw Convention and the Montreal Convention have coined different mechanisms for the calculation of damages payable by the airlines engaged in international carriage in the event of injury to passengers during the flight. Apparently, passengers who receive such international carriage services are entitled to claim for damages under specified circumstances. Nevertheless, such claim may be frustrated by various expected or unexpected obstacles and the Ma Meilan case is a typical example of such frustration. This thesis intends to explore into the diversified and intricate issues with respect to the claim made by the injured passenger against an airline conducting business of international carriage. Such issues, as perceived and surveyed by the author, may not only exclusively be relevant to the claim in the Ma Meilan case under Chinese legal regime but may likewise be encountered in other jurisdictions, which need to be classified and analysed for proper solutions. Such issues include but are not necessarily limited to the jurisdiction of the national court seizing the case, the legal basis or rationale upon which the court may render its judgment or decision, the construction by the court of the different international treaties for the purpose of their application or exclusion or even the relationship between the municipal law and international law with regard to the legal processing of the claim raised by the passenger against international airlines. All these issues are examined in this thesis perhaps without definite solutions or answers, yet it is still conducive if these issues are clearly identified and raised for further discussions with both academic and practical significance.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".