Bibliographic record
Abstract
In international air transportation, it is sure to talk about the responsibility of the carrier, which cannot be separate from the discussion of international agreements, namely, in this case, the 1999 Montreal Convention, which contains the issue of the responsibility of international air carriers. This study aims to determine the guilt of air carriers on international flights to passengers, shippers, and third parties in the event of an aircraft accident. The approach method used in this research is normative juridical (legal research), using legal materials as the primary material. The carrier's responsibility is based on the absolute principle; the page is responsible but is still limited by the limitation principle (the carrier's responsibility is limited to a certain amount). The airline's responsibility is based on the presumption and limitation of liability for consignments and baggage. The carrier is always considered responsible until the airline can prove that it is not guilty of the event that caused the loss. The carrier's responsibility for baggage should be absolute because, by the time the passenger brings the bags, it has passed several checks that have confirmed that the goods in the luggage are not problematic.How to cite item: Sariwati, R (2022). Responsibilities of air carriers on international flights. Jurnal Cakrawala Hukum, 13(2). 194-201. doi:10.26905/idjch.v13i2.7963.
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 | 0.009 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".