MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389612351 · doi:10.4337/9781800889866.00049

Respective liability of contracting and actual carriers

2023· book-chapter· en· W4389612351 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Carlos Roberto Martins

Bibliographic record

VenueEdward Elgar Publishing eBooks · 2023
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Law and Aviation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLiabilityConventionBusinessLawLaw and economicsPolitical scienceEconomicsFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The inclusion of Article 40 in the text of the Montreal Convention 1999 is a modernising feature in the evolution of the liability of air carriers from the Warsaw Convention 1929 and the Hague Protocol 1955. It codifies the liability rules traditionally attributed to the contracting carrier as also being applicable to other carriers that provide the carriage, in whole or in part, on behalf of the contracting carrier (i.e., the ‘actual carrier’), even though the actual carrier has no contractual relationship with the passenger or consignor. This effect was, at least in part, an effort to recognise the air carrier liabilities associated with the common practice of codesharing operations and the wet leasing of aircraft.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.730
Threshold uncertainty score0.727

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.255 · 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
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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEdward Elgar Publishing eBooksSame topicInternational Law and AviationFrench-language works237,207