The Problem of Determining the Law Applicable to Damageable Act in the High Seas Pursuant to the Jordanian International Private Law
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the present article, the author examines one of the most important issues related to the international private law. This issue is how to determine the law applicable to damageable act in the high seas according to the Jordanian international private law. This problem is represented in the way of how the Jordanian legislator, in general, deals with the law applicable to the damageable act in the Jordanian civil code without dealing with the problem of identifying the law applicable to the damageable act in the high seas, which leads the author to ask and answer about how to determine the law applicable to this damageable act. The jurisprudence of the international private law pays great deal of attention to the problem of the law applicable to damageable act on the high seas, where many opinions try to solve it. The international community also takes notice of this problem as well as the result of this attention the emergence of the Brussels maritime Collision Convention in 1910. It is worth mentioning that Jordanian legislator has addressed the issue of maritime collision in the Jordanian maritime commercial law which contains numerous provisions that match perfectly with the provisions of the Brussels Collision Convention in 1910.
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 | 0.022 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".