MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Sytuacja prawna wraku RMS Titanic

2022· article· en· W4309783982 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Dariusz Rafał Bugajski

Bibliographic record

VenueSantander Art and Culture Law Review · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMaritime and Coastal Archaeology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLawJurisdictionConventionUnited Nations Convention on the Law of the SeaPolitical scienceLaw of the seaHistoryArchaeologyInternational lawMunicipal law

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The legal protection of the RMS Titanic Almost immediately after the Titanic sank on 15 April 1912, proposals were advanced to salvage the ship from her resting place. The wreck was ultimately discovered on 1 September 1985. This article will discuss the application of the 1982 UN Law of the Sea Convention and the 2001 UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage and the development of the law of salvage through orders of the courts with respect to the protection of the wreck of the RMS Titanic and her artifacts. The paper will discuss the matter of ownership and other legal titles to such property. The 2001 UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage applies to all traces of human existence having a cultural, historical or archaeological character which have been submerged for at least 100 years. Thus, 15 April 2012 marks the moment when the Titanic wreckage became protected under this Convention. The Titanic lies currently in international waters, outside of the exclusive jurisdiction of any State. Legal jurisdiction over the seabed may change when Canada extends its Continental Shelf under the 1982 UN Law of the Sea Convention. Niemal natychmiast po zatonięciu RMS Titanic 15 kwietnia 1912 r. pojawiły się pomysły jego wydobycia. Szczątki Titanica zostały odnalezione 1 września 1985 r. W artykule podjęto zagadnienie zastosowania przepisów Konwencji Narodów Zjednoczonych o prawie morza z 1982 r. i Konwencji UNESCO o ochronie podwodnego dziedzictwa kulturowego z 2001 r. do ochrony szczątków RMS Titanic oraz zagadnienie ewolucji tejże ochrony w świetle orzecznictwa sądów krajowych. Przedmiotem badań jest także własność i inne tytuły prawne związane z wrakiem Titanica. Konwencja UNESCO z 2001 r. ma zastosowanie do wszystkich śladów ludzkiej egzystencji mających znaczenie kulturowe, historyczne lub archeologiczne, które są zatopione od ponad 100 lat. Od 15 kwietnia 2012 r. Titanic i jego artefakty są chronione na podstawie tej Konwencji. Obecnie szczątki tego liniowca spoczywają na wodach międzynarodowych poza wyłączną jurysdykcją jakiegokolwiek państwa. Jurysdykcja w stosunku do dna morskiego może się zmienić, kiedy Kanada rozszerzy swój szelf kontynentalny zgodnie z Konwencją o prawie morza z 1982 r.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.778
Threshold uncertainty score0.967

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0340.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.209 · 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.

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 venueSantander Art and Culture Law ReviewSame topicMaritime and Coastal ArchaeologyFrench-language works237,207