Aplicación en España de los límites temporales para el ejercicio de acciones compensatorias por daños sufridos durante la ejecución de un transporte aéreo internacional según el Convenio de Montreal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
espanolEl Convenio de Montreal establece en su art. 35 limites temporales para ejercitar acciones por parte de los pasajeros o sus causahabientes tendentes a ser indemnizados en casos de muerte, lesiones u otros eventos daninos durante el trasporte aereo internacional, habiendo en Espana un debate doctrinal y jurisprudencial sobre la naturaleza juridica de este plazo, con las graves consecuencias que representa respecto de la posibilidad de su ejercicio, pues, en el caso de la prescripcion, hay posibilidad de interrupcion del plazo y es necesaria su alegacion por la parte que pretende beneficiarse, mientras que en el caso de la caducidad, estamos ante un plazo que no admite su detencion y que puede ser apreciado de oficio por los tribunales. EnglishThe Montreal Convention provides in Article 35 time limits in arder to bring actions by the passenger or his successors aimed to be compensated in cases of death, injury or other damaging events during an international air transport, being in Spain a doctrinal and jurisprudential discussion around the legal nature of this deadline, considering the serious consequences that this represents regarding the possibility of its exercise, then, in the case of the prescription, it is possible the interruption of the period and it is necessary to be claimed by the party that intends to benefit from it, while in the expiration time cases, this is a deadline that does not support his detention and that can be appreciated for court on its own initiative.
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 | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.001 |
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".