Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to make research on the provisions of the revision draft by ICAO(International Civil Aviation Organization) of the Rome Convention on Damage Caused by Foreign Aircraft to Third Parties on the Surface, 1978, and the opinions on the draft Convention by governments, insurers and air carriers. As a result of the events of 11 September 2001 in the United States, The ICAO has earnestly discussed to review and modernize the Rome Convention on Damage Caused by Foreign Aircraft to Third Parties on the Surface, 1952 and 1978. The ICAO Secretariat Study Group on the Modernization of the Rome Convention held four meetings during 2002 and 2003, and the Secretariat produced a Draft Convention on Damage Caused by Foreign Aircraft to Third Parties. The scope of air carrier's liability and the insurability of the risks giving rise to that liability are the main points of the draft Convention. With respect to basic risks for damage to third parties on the ground, the draft text introduces a liability system similar to the one under the Montreal Convention of 1999. The provisions of the draft Convention related to damage caused as a result of an act of unlawful interference created much discussion in the ICAO Legal Committee. The critical questions were whether carriers should be considered liable for damage resulting from an act of unlawful interference, and if so, to what extent.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".