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 OpenAlex
Tom van der Wijngaart

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.953
Threshold uncertainty score0.975

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

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