MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2912254382 · doi:10.22034/jhi.2018.64941

Civil Liability of Air carrier in Delays

2018· article· en· W2912254382 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Samira Mazaheri, Zeinab Basiri

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Humanities Insights · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Law and Aviation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLegislatorDamagesLawJurisprudenceLiabilityDoctrinePosition (finance)Political scienceAir transportInternational lawStrict liabilityLegal liabilityCivil aviationBusinessEngineeringAviationAeronauticsLegislation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The civil liability of air carrier can be assessed in international and national levels. However, in international flights, in accordance with Article 19 of the Warsaw and Montreal Conventions, the air carrier is liable for damages caused by delays in the carriage of passengers or cargo. However, none of the conventions has provided a definite definition of delay and has not addressed the issue of what kind of damages could be received for delays. Also, in the national level, the Iranian legislator's position on delays in national flights seems to be under criticism, and it is not clear what regulations are in this regard. Therefore, in principle, we must comply with the general rules. In addition, lack of specific regulations in this area has made it difficult for passengers to demand proper services in a delay. An issue that is clearly against the rights of more and more air passengers. The present paper analyzes the status of Iranian legislator on national flights while analyzing the concept of delays and damages in international jurisprudence and legal doctrine, and provides an appropriate solution in the light of a comparative study.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.011
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0050.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.267 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Humanities InsightsSame topicInternational Law and AviationFrench-language works237,207