A Commentary on the Articles Appearing on Pages 583-618 Relating to the Exclusivity of the Liability Rules of The Montreal Convention of 1999 Applicable to the Carriage of Passengers and Cargo
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Issue 6, 2018 of Air & Space Law included two very fine articles addressing Court decisions of the (1) European Court of Justice (CJEU) [see pages 609-618] and (2) an ‘Intermediate People’s Court’ in Beijing, PRC, [see pages 583-607] involving ‘international air carriage’ within the scope of the 1999 Montreal Convention [MC99] and addressing the exclusivity of the liability and damage rules of MC99 to the exclusion of otherwise applicable local or domestic laws, rules and regulations. MC99 was conceived, drafted and adopted to supplant and replace the hodgepodge of liability rules, applicable to ‘international air transportation’, which existed from 1929 to 1999 in various related international treaties, amending /supplementing protocols and inter-carrier agreements, which had evolved over the life of the 1929 Warsaw Convention addressing and resolving, albeit in a temporary and insufficient manner, certain of the liability rules applicable to the international air transportation of passengers, baggage and cargo.1 When MC99 entered into force on 4 November 2003, the following existing Conventions, Protocols and inter-carrier agreements dealing with air carrier liability arising from the international air transportation of passengers, baggage and cargo were superseded by MC99, where applicable to the transportation:
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".