MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4240799089 · doi:10.54648/aila2014023

Report on the European Air Law Association 9th Munich Liability Seminar: Liability, Insurance and Reinsurance, Passenger Rights and Procurement of Legal Services in the Air Transport and Aircraft Fina

2014· article· en· W4240799089 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
David Cluxton

Bibliographic record

VenueAir and Space Law · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Law and Aviation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLawLiabilityPanel discussionPolitical scienceBusinessAdvertising

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The 9th edition of the European Air Law Association (EALA) Munich Liability Seminar took place on the 19 May 2014. There were panels addressing current issues in private air law: passenger rights and the proposed revision of Regulation 261/2004; criminalization of aviation accidents and accident reporting; assessment of the Montreal Protocol 2014, amending the Tokyo Convention 1963, including the problem on unruly passengers. The seminar also included a presentation of reinsurance in the aviation sector from Munich Re. The seminar touched on space law with a panel consisting of two presentations on the topic of liability for damage caused by sub-orbital spacecraft. The seminar concluded with an in-house counsel panel of current trends in the procurement of legal services. On 19 May 2014 the Kempinski Hotel Airport Munich once again played home to the European Air Law Association (EALA) Munich Liability Seminar, this time back for its 9th edition. The seminar itself was preceded the previous night by a visit to the BMW Museum, which included a private tour of the exhibition. The following morning, the President of EALA, Prof. Dr P.M.J. Mendes de Leon, gave his welcoming address to the delegates, noting the international appeal of the seminar's programme, evidenced by the attendance of so many delegates from the United States. Dr Ehlers, reiterating the warm welcome to the delegates gave the floor to Dimitri de Bournonville, Partner at Kennedys Law Firm in Brussels, and moderator of the day's first panel.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.066
Threshold uncertainty score0.219

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0080.005
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0150.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0660.026

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.232 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAir and Space LawSame topicInternational Law and AviationFrench-language works237,207