Ocean Carrier's Loss of Liability Limitation -- Interpretation of Article IV.5 (e) of the Hague-Visby Rules in French, Greek, Italian and German Law
Bibliographic record
Abstract
English Abstract: In a comparative analysis of selected issues under Article IV.5(e) of the Hague-Visby Rules a provision that deals with the loss of the ocean carrier's liability limitation benefit the laws of four civil law seafaring nations are examined (France, Germany, Italy and Greece). This article attempts to analyse various interpretations and discover to what extent laws in these civil law jurisdictions adopt common solutions on questions that have given rise to heated judicial and doctrinal debates under Visby Rules Article IV.5(e).French Abstract: Le present article offre une vue d’ensemble des causes d’exoneration du transporteur maritime des marchandises contenues dans les Regles de Rotterdam et les Regles de la Haye-Haye/Visby. L’objectif de notre analyse est d’identifier les modifications les plus importantes apportees par les Regles de Rotterdam aux causes d’exoneration existantes sous les Regles de la Haye-Haye/Visby. La jurisprudence et doctrine Canadienne, Anglaise et des Etats Unis portant sur les causes d’exoneration des Regles de la Haye-Haye/Visby fournissent la base de notre etude comparative.
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 | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| 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; 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".