Jurisdictional Issues in the Enforcement of Air Passengers’ Rights: The Case of Nigeria
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Carriage of goods and persons by air is an essential means of transportation in contemporary time. Transportation by air may be for luxury, medical needs, education, and commercialization. It involved the carriage of the passenger from a point of departure to an agreed place of stoppage, thus the flight could be international or domestic. Air passengers might experience late departure, arrival or cancellation of flight, denied boarding, bodily or emotional injury on board, accident in the course of embarkation or disembarkation and in extreme cases death. A passenger’s right to remedy under any of these circumstances depend on his ingenuity to understand the procedure for activating his right vis a vis the basis of the claim. This paper examined the knotty issues in the procedure for seeking remedies in aviation claims against the background of the provisions of the Montreal and Warsaw Conventions, with a view to guiding air passengers out of such pitfall. The paper found out that jurisdiction in aviation claims depend on the nature of the claim, cause of action and the procedure applicable in the local court seized of the matter, which to a significant extent restrict the right of the passengers to access courts of their choice. This paper, among others, thus advocate for expansion in the venues for filing claims in aviation law.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".