Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is generally acknowledged that the Hague and Hague-Visby Rules do not apply to deck cargo, while a number of cases have clarified that the common law of UK is not sufficient to solve disputes relating to the deck cargo. Article 25 of the Rotterdam Rules focuses on discussing on deck carriage, including what is authorized deck carriage, the liabilities, defense and limitation of liabilities of the carriers and shippers in disputes related to deck carriage. The research aim of this paper is to analyze whether the Rotterdam Rules, especially Article 25, can solve deck carriage disputes properly; whether this convention can balance the interests of the parties, fulfill social justice and also provide certainty of duties and liabilities. If the Rotterdam Rules could ameliorate the currently applicable regime for deck cargo under the Hague and Hague-Visby Rules, and national laws, then it would be better for us to accept the Rotterdam Rules as a whole or at least use the Rotterdam Rules to carry out new international laws or modernize national laws.
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 | 0.014 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".