Giurisdizione e competenza nella Convenzione di Montreal del 1999. / Jurisdiction and competence in the Montreal Convention of 1999.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
El trabajo se centra en el problema de la jurisdicción dentro de las disposiciones específicas dictadas por el régimen de ley uniforme para el transporte aéreo, específicamente al régimen del Convenio de Montreal del 28 de mayo de 1999 y a las correspondiente soluciones del Convenio de Varsovia del 12 de octubre de 1929, que constituyeron el trasfondo. Estas normas se refieren específicamente a las acciones de responsabilidad contra la compañía aérea que se rigen por los textos de ley uniforme que las contienen, pero no las que puedan ejercitarse por otro motivo, o contra distintos sujetos, ni las que el propio transportista pueda ejercitar contra el remitente. o contra el pasajero que le causó daño con su propio comportamiento. ABSTRACT The work focuses on the problem of jurisdiction within the specific provisions dictated by the uniform law regime for air transport, specifically the regime of the Montreal Convention of May 28, 1999 and the corresponding solutions of the Warsaw Convention of 12 October 1929, which formed the background. These rules specifically refer to liability actions against the airline that are governed by the uniform law texts that contain them, but not those that can be exercised for any other reason, or against different subjects, nor those that the carrier itself may exercise.against the sender. or against the passenger who caused him harm with his own behavior.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.030 | 0.002 |
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".