MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4285788848 · doi:10.54648/aila2019022

The 1952 Rome Convention on Surface Damage and Its Application in the Case of Aircraft Noise Emission: The Example of Belgium

2019· article· en· W4285788848 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Dimitri De Bournonville, Cyril-Igor Grigorieff

Bibliographic record

VenueAir and Space Law · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Law and Aviation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConventionAppealLawLiabilityPrejudice (legal term)Noise (video)Political scienceAircraft noiseEngineeringComputer sciencePhysicsAcousticsNoise reduction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although the 1952 Rome Convention on Surface Damage does not account with as many ratifications as the 1999 Montreal Convention or its predecessors, it organizes what can be seen as an operators’ friendly liability regime. In a recent landmark ruling in a matter that was pending before the Belgian courts for nearly twenty years, the Court of Appeal of Brussels held that airlines could not be held liable for the prejudice allegedly caused by their aircraft’s noise emissions to the extent that these aircraft and their operations comply with the rules of air.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.951
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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