MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3135579303 · doi:10.29313/.v7i1.24892

Tanggung Jawab Maskapai Penerbangan kepada Konsumen Penerbangan Yang Diakibatkan Oleh Perbuatan Melawan Hukum Penumpang Pesawat Udara Menurut Konvensi Montreal 1999 Dan Undang Undang Nomor 1 Tahun 2009 Jo. Peraturan Menteri Perhubungan Nomor 77 Tahun 2011

2021· article· id· W3135579303 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Nurcahaya Siregar, Iman Sunendar

Bibliographic record

VenueProsiding Ilmu Hukum · 2021
Typearticle
Languageid
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Law and Aviation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical scienceArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract . Airplanes in conducting flight activities can cause accidents.  Airplane accidents can be caused by the airline or passengers.  Therefore, the aim of this study is to determine the responsibility of airlines for losses caused by acts of unlawful acts against aircraft passengers both in the 1999 Montreal Convention and Law No. 1 of 2009 Jo.  PERMENHUB 77/201.  This research method uses a normative juridical approach, namely research that emphasizes the science of law.  The research specification uses descriptive analysis.  The library research data collection technique is done by collecting secondary data.  The analysis method uses qualitative juridical and uses systematic interpretation to link more than one legislation.  The result of this research is that airlines are still responsible, based on article 141 paragraph (1) of Law No.1 of 2009 concerning Aviation, and Article 17 paragraph 1 of the 1999 Montreal Convention, illegal acts that occur on an airplane and are committed by passengers or airlines  cause damage to someone else, including the responsibility of the airline and can ask for compensation from the airline concerned. Abstrak .Pesawat udara dalam melakukan kegiatan penerbangan dapat menimbulkan kecelakaan. Kecelakaan pesawat udarabdapat disebabkan oleh maskapai atau penumpang. Oleh karena itu tujuan dari penelitian ini untuk mengetahui tanggungjawab maskapai penerbangan terhadap kerugian yang disebabkan oleh perbuatan melawan hukum penumpang pesawat udara baik dalam Konvensi Montreal 1999 maupun UU No 1 Tahun 2009 Jo. PERMENHUB 77/201. Metode Penelitian ini menggunakan pendekatan yuridis normatif yaitu penelitian yang menekankan kepada ilmu hukum. Spesifikasi penelitian menggunakan deskriptif analisis. Teknik pengumpulan data studi kepustakaan, dilakukan dengan cara mengumpulkan data sekunder. Serta metode analisis menggunakan yuridis kualitatif serta menggunakan penafsiran sistematis untuk menghubung-hubungkan perundang-undangan yang lebih dari satu. Hasil dari penelitian ini adalah maskapai tetep bertanggungjawab, berdasarkan pasal 141 ayat (1) Undang-Undang No.1 Tahun 2009 Tentang Penerbangan, dan pasal 17 ayat 1  Konvensi Montreal 1999, perbuatan melawan hukum yang terjadi dalam pesawat dan dilakukan oleh penumpang ataupun maskapai yang menyebabkan kerugian kepada seseorang lainnya, termasuk kepada tanggungjawab maskapai dan dapat meminta ganti kerugian kepada pihak maskapai yang bersangkutan.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score0.148

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0440.007

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.241 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProsiding Ilmu HukumSame topicInternational Law and AviationFrench-language works237,207