Consumer law in Constitution: a big mistake? The specific case of aviation in Brazil
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.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it