Sumisión tácita, control de la competencia y compabilidad entre instrumentos jurídicos en litigios de compensación a pasajeros por cancelación de vuelo contra aerolíneas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
El entramado de varios instrumentos jurídicos para abordar la misma materia puede suscitar confusión en la práctica de cuál debe ser el de aplicación, así como también su posible aplicación simultánea. Esto sucede en la materia de contratos de transporte internacional de pasajeros por aire. Sin embargo, la jurisprudencia del Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea (TJUE) ha establecido varios criterios para interpretar la compatibilidad de todos estos instrumentos jurídicos, en particular, sobre los posibles problemas procesales que el instrumento jurídico especial por razón de la materia aparentemente no regule y que los de corte general si regulan. En el Auto que se comenta, existen varias cuestiones importantes que merecen de análisis, como la falta o no de regulación de la sumisión tácita en los instrumentos especiales y el control de la competencia. Por otra parte, se discute la compatibilidad de los instrumentos especiales, cuando el pasajero-demandante invoca las acciones del Reglamento 261/2004 de forma simultánea a las comprendidas en el Convenio de Montreal 1999.
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 | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 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".