MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389612432 · doi:10.4337/9781800889866.00024

Relations of consignor and consignee or mutual relations of third parties

2023· book-chapter· en· W4389612432 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Julia Hörnig

Bibliographic record

VenueEdward Elgar Publishing eBooks · 2023
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicLaw, logistics, and international trade
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBeneficiaryBusinessConventionSine qua nonLaw and economicsLawPolitical scienceEconomicsFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Article 15 clarifies that the rights granted in Articles 12-14 concern the relationship between the carrier and the consignor as contracting parties as well as the relationship between the carrier and the beneficiary of the contract of carriage, namely the consignee. Article 15 does not regulate rights and obligations between the consignor and the consignee. As a consequence, the consignee may not claim delivery from the consignor on the basis of the Montreal Convention 1999. Article 15 thereby indirectly clarifies the relation between the contract of carriage and the underlying contract which is usually a contract of sale. The latter is usually a condition sine qua non for the contract of carriage, but not legally linked to it. It is of utmost importance to separate these two contractual relationships.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.525
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.175 · 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 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 topicLaw, logistics, and international tradeFrench-language works237,207