Overbooking: uma análise crítica e comparativa das legislações brasileira e internacional sobre as práticas abusivas das companhias aéreas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
O presente trabalho de conclusao de curso aborda o tema Overbooking, com enfase na analise legal e jurisprudencial que circula o assunto. Inicialmente, para compreender as suas particularidades, e imprescindivel destacar sua natureza enquanto decorrencia do contrato de compra e venda de passagens aereas – especificamente um contrato de adesao –, o qual e imposto aos consumidores, sem que os mesmos possam negocia-lo. Assim, a celebracao do contrato de compra e venda de passagens aereas faz nascer entre a empresa aerea e o passageiro uma relacao de consumo, na qual incidem os principios contratuais existentes no ordenamento juridico brasileiro. A partir dessa premissa, analisam-se as praticas abusivas comumente impostas pelas companhias aereas e qual a posicao da lei brasileira no tocante ao dano causado aos consumidores. Em contrapartida, a legislacao aplicavel ao transporte aereo internacional, as Convencoes de Varsovia e de Montreal, preveem um sistema de indenizacao tarifada, que estabelece que os danos causados aos consumidores serao reparados atraves de valores preestabelecidos e limitados. Ademais, as mencionadas Convencoes nao preveem a indenizacao por danos extrapatrimoniais. A jurisprudencia brasileira, atraves do Supremo Tribunal Federal, adotou o posicionamento em Repercussao Geral onde os voos internacionais serao regidos pela legislacao internacional, em dissintonia com o Codigo de Defesa do Consumidor, que preve um padrao de reparacao integral do dano.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.038 | 0.020 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".