A regulamentação dos danos civis aos passageiros de transporte aéreo: uma análise crítica da resolução 400/2016 da ANAC e Das convenções de Varsóvia e Montréal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the rights of air passengers in Brazil as a result of Resolution 400/2016 of ANAC and RE 636,331/RJ and ARE 766,618/SP, on the constitutionality of the Warsaw and Montreal Conventions. It is intended, using the deductive and exploratory method, use of bibliographic material and case study, to analyze how passengers’ rights were affected by the recent legal regulations. The goal is to analyze the legal aspects associated with the rebooking and tick- et cancellations, right of withdrawal, deprecation of passengers, charge for baggage clearance, free allowance for unchecked baggage, flight delays, compensation for personal injury, compensation for lost luggage, prescriptive deadlines for civil action and collection by early booking of aircraft seats. Finally, it is aimed to prove that in the great majority of the cases mentioned, there were flagrant setbacks inflicted both by the regulatory norm and by the adoption of Conventions in primacy to the Consumer Defense Code.
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 | 0.010 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".