Bibliographic record
Abstract
After international transportation by air became a reality, the need to fashion out an appropriate global regime to govern the new relationships created by this development led to the signing of the Warsaw Convention in 1929. As time went on, the need to adjust this original Convention to contemporary technological and legal realities necessitated the enactment of several other instruments that were not new Conventions in themselves, but were merely welded to the original 1929 Convention. With the absence of consolidation, the undesirable result was total confusion created by the concurrent operation of the multiple regimes of the Warsaw System. The overwhelming need to modernise and consolidate all instruments of the Warsaw system into a single uniform text culminated in the signing of the Montreal Convention on 28 May 1999. This thesis attempts to x-ray the Montreal Convention in the light of its potentials to alleviate the numerous problems of the Warsaw system, including the prospects of its ratification. In the same vein, the inherent deficiencies and imperfections of this new instrument, which might militate against its ratification, have been overtly highlighted for reference. This treatise also analysed the need for developing and African nations to ratify the new convention notwithstanding that their interests were given minimal considerations. The conclusion is a call to all nations, particularly the US, to ratify this new convention without further procrastination, in order to enable it come into force without further delay, lest it become just another relic in the kitty of the very Warsaw System that it sought to replace.
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 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.027 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.032 | 0.006 |
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".