Consumer law in Constitution: a big mistake? The specific case of aviation in Brazil
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Globalisation, alongside with the growth in trade and wealth has influenced the considerable development of consumer law over the last 50 years. In some countries, consumer rights have been embraced at the highest Constitutional level. For instance, in Brazil, consumer protection has been given a constitutional value. This constitutional value has been reinforced by the approach taken by the Federal Supreme Court of Brazil with regard to that nation’s Consumer Code (CDC). In spite of the existence of a specific federal agency with its own rules to govern civil aviation, the services rendered by airline companies are also subject to the Consumer Code. For an obscure reason, and even though logic would favor application of the Montreal Convention, Brazilian judges prefer to apply the Brazilian Consumer Code to international air service, in cases involving consumers. The conflict between the Montreal Convention and the CDC is limited to one area, which is one of the most important areas regulated by the Convention, namely the civil responsibility of the carrier. This paper demonstrates that the inclusion of consumer rights as Constitutional rights does not improve the standard of consumer protection but instead put a heavy burden on airlines and in the case of the CDC even creates legal uncertainty.
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 | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
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".