The Role of Ethics in Civil Liability Focusing on the Principles of Carrier’s Civil Liability (A philosophical-ethical study)
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Ethics are closely tied to people's beliefs, values, and ideals, and custom assumes a special sacredness for morality. The present study attempts to investigate the role of ethics in civil liability law and the ethical aspects of fault and compensation of damages arising from faults. Through analyzing ethics and its philosophy as well as investigating the ethical theories, the present study also aims to investigate the effects of ethics on civil liability theories. Moreover, by examining the contents of the first part, this study examines the principles of civil liability of the transport operator. Conclusion: Regarding human's ethical liability, there are two main views in ethical philosophy. First, there is a retrospective view stating that human is responsible for his decision-making power and voluntary actions. Second view is a prospective one holding human responsible for the consequences of his/her actions. Much of the theory of civil liability is inspired by these two views. In the field of transportation, the legal relationship between the sender and the operator of the multimodal transport, under a single contract, is called the multimodal transport contract. The basis of transport operator liability in single-mode conventions is diverse. The basis of liability in The Hague and Warsaw Conventions is based on fault. As for the liability of operators of shipping terminals in international trade (1994), the Hamburg, CMR, CIM, Montreal and the United Nations Conventions are based on presumed liability.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.023 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it