The concepts of "accident" and "bodily injury" in private international air law
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Article 17 in the Warsaw Convention 1929, the core provision to all liability for passenger injury and death, has been the most litigated Article of the Warsaw Convention. The main reason for this is that the Warsaw Convention, the axis of private international air law, unfortunately did not provide clear definitions regarding "accident" and "bodily injury" in the Article 17. Its amendments, the Hague Protocol 1955 and the Guatemala Protocol 1971, did not succeed in clarifying the meanings. Although the Montreal Conference 1999 witnessed strong debates regarding the amendment of Article 17, the Montreal Convention 1999 did not succeed in changing Article 17. Since the Warsaw System did not provide definitions of "accident" and "bodily injury", each State has interpreted the two terms individually. Inconsistency in interpreting "accident" and "bodily injury" has emerged, since every State has a different jurisprudence. This phenomenon has created confusion in the international air transport community. In order to clear up the confusion, the International Civil Aviation Organization should amend Article 17 to specify and clarify the terms: "accident" and "bodily injury", while balancing the interests of all parties in the international air transport community.
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 | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.037 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".