Odgovornost za štete prouzročene zloupotrebom zrakoplova
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, the authors analyse non-contractual and contractual liabilities for damages caused by the misuse of aircraft. They also give an overview of the Rules of the Rome Convention and the Montreal Protocol laying down liability for the damages caused by a foreign aircraft to third persons on the ground, and the main indications of efforts to modernise these Rules. These solutions at the international level are compared with those contained in the national legislations, as well as in domestic and comparative law. Special emphasis is put on the way the United States of America has solved the issue of compensation for damages to the victims of the terrorist attack of 11 September 2001. The contractual liability for damages caused by the misuse of aircraft in international air traffic is regulated by the Montreal Convention of 1991, whose provisions are compared with those contained in the national law of Croatia. A conclusion is drawn that in the case of the misuse of aircraft, such as on 11 September, the focus is transferred from the problem of liability as such, i.e. from an effort to identify the persons, apart from the perpetrators themselves, who may also be responsible for the damage caused, to the problem of how to compensate the victims in a fast and just way, at least for the damages resulting in death or various bodily injuries.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.004 |
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".