Prescripción o caducidad en el Convenio de Montreal sobre transporte aéreo internacional de 28 de mayo de 1999
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Basicamente, el articulo plantea y gira en torno a cuatro temas. El primero se refiere al primer apartado del art. 35 del Convenio de Montreal de 1999, y gira en torno al problema de definir si el plazo de dos anos en el indicado es de prescripcion o de caducidad. El segundo tema se refiere a la determinacion de las acciones a las que se aplica dicho plazo. El tercer tema se refiere a la extension de la aplicacion del Convenio de Montreal de 1999 al transporte aereo de pasajeros y de sus equipajes dentro del territorio de los Estados miembros de la Union Europea, con la consecuencia de que dicha normativa integra el Derecho comunitario derivado, y que el Tribunal de Justicia de las Comunidades Europeas es, respecto de dichos Estados, el interprete final del Convenio. El quinto tema se refiere al efecto que un procedimiento penal puede tener frente al plazo de caducidad resultante del arto 35 del Convenio de Montreal de 1999, siendo la conclusion del autor que la existencia de dicho procedimiento no puede interrumpir ni suspender dicho plazo, por ser ajeno al mismo.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".