El convenio de Montreal para la Unificación de ciertas reglas para el transporte aéreo interncional de 1999: el comienzo de una nueva etapa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
El presente articulo ha sido redactado con motivo de la ratificacion espanola del Convenio de Montreal de 1999 sobre transporte aereo (BOE num. 122, de 20 de mayo de 2004). Lejos de un examen exhaustivo de su contenido punto por punto y en comparacion con sus antecedentes -labor cuyas exigencias no pueden ser colmadas con la redaccion de un articulo- lo que se pretende es hacer un breve analisis y valoracion de los factores que han impulsado la redaccion de este Convenio, la clave del que entendemos ha sido su rapidisimo exito y algunos de los aspectos de su normativa que se consideran mas destacados y que presentan un mayor grado de variacion respecto del esquema preexistente. De entre las ideas alcanzadas en la senalada labor una puede ser adelantada, y es que la uniformizacion del Derecho (en nuestro caso sobre el transporte aereo de personas) ha demostrado (no por vez primera, bien es cierto) ser un fenomeno que tiene un camino de ida, hacia el plano internacional, y uno de vuelta, hacia el plano domestico, que cada vez con mas frecuencia tienden a desembocar en una misma solucion para los dos ambitos.
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 | 0.009 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".