EVALUATION OF THE EU REGULATION 261/2004 ON RIGHTS OF AIR PASSENGERS IN THE EVENT OF DELAYED AND CANCELLED FLIGHTS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In contracts of carriage by air, there are bound to be challenges, disagreements and possible recourse to litigation. There is no complete uniformity in substantive and procedural laws binding air carriers and passengers in the event of disagreement as the Warsaw and Montreal Conventions recognized the applicability of local circumstance and contractual peculiarity. To fill in this gap, the European Community Parliament enacted a common regulation 261/2004 stating the obligations of air carriers to passengers and the right of passengers in the event of certain categories of breach of contract of carriage within the region. Following conflicting interpretations of the regulation, an Interpretative Guidelines was established in 2016 to clarified grey areas in the regulation. Nonetheless, the substantive rights seem to be defective in certain areas. This paper therefore, seeks to evaluate the provisions of the regulation by highlighting the inadequacies therein. The paper found out that there is no provision for delay of passengers at the tarmac, even as the distinction between a delayed and cancelled flight remained clumsy. This paper recommends the amendment of certain provisions of the regulation to meet the expectations of air passengers.
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 | 0.092 | 0.100 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".