Liability of the Air Carrier for the Death and Injury of a Passenger
Bibliographic record
Abstract
International Civil Aviation Law is one of the most important legal orders in the contemporary International Law. Since passengers are the most important component in aviation processes, it is important to ensure the protection of passengers during the aviation process. An international legal framework for air carrier liability for passengers is governed by the Warsaw Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules relating to International Carriage by Air in 1929 and also Montreal Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules relating to International Carriage by Air in 1999. Even though these conventions are available, there are some lacunas related to ensuring the protection of the passengers covered by dozens of Case Laws. As Montreal Convention in 1999 replaced the Warsaw convention in 1929, it is paramount to ascertain the existing legal phenomena regarding the liability for death and injury of passengers, enriched by case laws. The focus of this study is a doctrinal research based on International Conventions, Case Laws, Law Reports and Law Journals in an international context. Based on the International Conventions and Case Laws, this paper will analyse the existing legal regime related to air carriers’ liability over death and injury of passengers in the field of International Civil Aviation.
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 | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".