MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2787360787 · doi:10.54648/aila2018002

Air Passenger Rights in the Electronic Age

2018· article· en· W2787360787 on OpenAlex
Peter P.C. Haanappel

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 · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Law and Aviation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessConventionLiberalizationDatabase transactionProduct (mathematics)ReservationAviationDeregulationLegislationLawMarket economyEconomicsPolitical scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For many decades, the private law rights of passengers against their air carriers were covered by the 1929 Warsaw Convention and its various amendments, supplemented by the International Air Transport Association (IATA) Conditions of Contract and Carriage of the airlines. Air carriers and their (travel) agents administered this worldwide system through their distribution of the air travel product. Over the years, the distribution system has changed considerably: computerized reservation systems were introduced; more and more did passengers or third parties on their behalf begin to contract directly with the airline of their choice, bypassing the agent, and more and more did they do so online, electronically, from their home or office computers. Meanwhile, the Warsaw Convention was replaced by the 1999 Montreal Convention. Also, following deregulation and liberalization of the airline industry, and a concomitant decrease in the regulatory influence of IATA, consumerism entered the air travel world prompting governments and the European Union to adopt special legislation or regulation on matters such as denied boarding, flight cancellations and delays. This new form of air passenger protection has been backed up and broadened by the courts, particularly in Europe. It has been opposed by the airlines, particularly the low cost carriers. The situation today seems to have become wasteful with too much uncertainty, too many claims, and too high transaction costs for all parties involved. Lastly, electronic and digital techniques have deeply penetrated the domain of the conclusion of the contract of carriage by air. Electronically concluded contracts have now become the most common form of contracting for the non-professional traveller, that is the individual air transport user, the consumer, who contracts directly with his or her airline, using electronic and digital means to do so. These are three distinct, but interrelated issues: the contractual distribution of the air travel product; the impact of consumer law; and electronic contracting (e-commerce). Each issue will be addressed in a separate part of the article. It seems that the time has come to try to forge a new contractual deal between airlines and their passengers: global, transparent and cost efficient. This article attempts to make a contribution to this beginning debate.

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 score0.894
Threshold uncertainty score0.991

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.268 · 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