MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3199240706

La responsabilidad de las compañías aéreas respecto al transporte aéreo de pasajeros y de sus equipajes en el territorio de la Unión Europea en casos de «accidente», tras la STJUE de 19 de diciembre de 2019 (Asunto C-532/18: Niki Luftfahrt)

2021· article· es· W3199240706 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Alfonso Ortega Giménez

Bibliographic record

VenueRevista de derecho del transporte: Terrestre, marítimo, aéreo y multimodal · 2021
Typearticle
Languagees
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Law and Aviation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesTribunalPolitical scienceConventionEuropean unionPhilosophyLawBusinessInternational trade
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

espanolLa siniestralidad derivada de los accidentes aereos y los elevados costes economicos que de ellos se derivaban son los factores determinantes en la configuracion del regimen legal de la navegacion aerea comercial. La normativa que regula la responsabilidad de las companias aereas frente a los pasajeros a nivel internacional es el Convenio de Montreal; siendo de aplicacion el Convenio de Varsovia para aquellos paises que no forman parte del Convenio de Montreal; sin embargo, en ninguna de estas normativas se especifica el concepto de «accidente»; dicha cuestion ha sido analizada por la Sentencia del Tribunal de Justicia de la Union Europea, de 19 de diciembre de 2019 (asunto C-532/18: Niki Luftfahrt) que, ante la falta del concepto de «accidente», plantea una cuestion prejudicial al Tribunal de Justicia de la Union Europea, que senala que debe interpretarse en el sentido de que el concepto de «accidente», a efectos de dicha disposicion, comprende todas las situaciones que se producen a bordo de una aeronave en las que un objeto utilizado para el servicio a los pasajeros ha causado una lesion corporal a un pasajero, sin que sea necesario dilucidar si estas situaciones derivan de un riesgo tipico de la aviacion. EnglishThe accident rate derived from air accidents and the high economic costs derived from them are the determining factors in the configuration of the legal regime for commercial air navigation. The regulation that regulates the responsibility of airlines towards passengers at the international level is the Montreal Convention; the Warsaw Convention being applicable for those countries that are not part of the Montreal Convention; however none of these regulations specifies the concept of «accident», said issue has been analyzed by the Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union, of December 19, 2019 (case C-532/18: Niki Luftfahrt) that, in the absence of the concept of «Accident»; raises a question for a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice of the European Union, which concludes by stating that it must be interpreted in the sense that the concept of «accident», for the purposes of said provision, includes all situations that occur on board of an aircraft in which an object used for passenger service has caused bodily injury to a passenger, without it being necessary to determine whether these situations derive from a r Typical aviation hazard.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.145
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0030.000
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.330 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
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 venueRevista de derecho del transporte: Terrestre, marítimo, aéreo y multimodalSame topicInternational Law and AviationFrench-language works237,207