MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Domestic Legislation on Cargo Liability

2022· book-chapter· en· W4280529432 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Stephen Girvin

Bibliographic record

VenueOxford University Press eBooks · 2022
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicLaw, logistics, and international trade
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLegislationCarriageLiabilityBusinessGoods and servicesCommonwealthDangerous goodsPublic goodLawEconomicsFinanceEngineeringPolitical scienceEconomyTransport engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This chapter discusses domestic legislation on cargo liability. In English law, common carriers, such as masters of general ships, were carriers who exercised a public employment, offering carriage to all persons wishing to use the services offered, whether for the carriage of goods (or of passengers). The general principle, as in Roman law, was that the carrier was liable as an ‘insurer’ of the goods, absolutely responsible for delivering the goods at the destination in like order and condition. Unlike public carriers, private carriers undertake the carriage of goods but do not hold themselves out as exercising a public employment. Usually, the carrier’s obligations arise from his contractual agreement to carry the goods of the shipper and, where for reward, private carriers are bailees and have the ordinary responsibilities of a bailee of the goods. The chapter then looks at the Harter Act of 1893 and legislation in other Commonwealth countries, including the Shipping and Seamen Act 1903 in New Zealand, the Sea-Carriage of Goods Act in Australia, and Canada’s Water-Carriage of Goods Act in 1910.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score0.147

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0440.013

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.173 · 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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOxford University Press eBooksSame topicLaw, logistics, and international tradeFrench-language works237,207