MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2585382005 · doi:10.54648/aila2016038

Montreal Convention: To Whom Is the Carrier Liable in the Event of Delay?

2016· article· en· W2585382005 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tom van der Wijngaart

Bibliographic record

VenueAir and Space Law · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Law and Aviation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConventionLawCarriageEconomic JusticeDirectiveSupreme courtPolitical scienceLithuanianMeaning (existential)Service (business)BusinessEngineeringPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is clear from Article 19 of the Montreal Convention 1999 that the ‘carrier is liable for damage occasioned by delay in the carriage by air of passengers, baggage or cargo’, but it is less clear to whom the carrier is liable – in the case of passenger delay, only to the passenger – or also to other parties who may suffer damage? In a judgment delivered on 17 February 2016, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) confirmed the latter alternative. The CJEU held, in response to a request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court of Lithuania, in Case C-429/14 Air Baltic v. Special Investigation Service of the Lithuanian Republic (SIS), that the Montreal Convention was to be interpreted as meaning that a carrier which has concluded a contract of carriage with an employer of persons carried as passengers is liable to that employer for damage occasioned by delay in the carriage by air of those passengers.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.599
Threshold uncertainty score0.807

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.008
Scholarly communication0.0110.007
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0130.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.265 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAir and Space LawSame topicInternational Law and AviationFrench-language works237,207