Air Travel Compensation Procedure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article is aimed at analyzing the legal means of protecting the interests of air transportation service recipients. The main emphasis will be placed on the analysis of the Warsaw Convention and the Montreal Convention provisions reflecting the freedom-of-contract doctrine since the air travel compensation procedure is not regulated by the national Russian legislation. As a result of the analysis, the conclusion was made that individuals, for example, in the case of harm causation, have the right to choose according to the law of which country the compensation should be paid to them. Separately, it was established that the various degrees of liability of air carriers, prescribed in the rules of airlines, not only failed to contribute to fair compensation for harm to the life and health of a passenger but, on the contrary, made for unjust enrichment on both sides. In this regard, the authors came to the conclusion that it is necessary to bring the procedure of compensation for harm caused during air transportation to uniform standards of the transportation rules for all international airlines. In this regard, the authors substantiate the need to introduce the elements of self-regulation of transportation activities and mandatory insurance of carrier liabilities. Besides, proposals were made to fill the gaps in the current air transport legislation, for example, regarding the regulation of a long-term agreement on the organization of systematic air transportation, aircraft charter contracts, and contracts for the performance of aviation work which is important for the country's economy.
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.028 | 0.011 |
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".