Editorial to the Special Edition of Air and Space Law on the 25th Anniversary of the Montreal Convention 1999
Bibliographic record
Abstract
MC99 or the Montreal Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air 1999 represents a landmark international agreement and one of the cornerstones of global air transport.It also belongs to a fairly limited category of those international treaties whose renown extends well beyond the confines of a small circle of legal experts.That is surely a mark of success for a technical instrument dealing with the complex topic of liability.MC99 emerged from a collective effort to harmonize and streamline the complex web of international rules governing air carrier liability.As readers are well aware, the international rules on liability were first established in the earliest days of commercial aviation, by the Warsaw Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to International Carriage by Air adopted in 1929.That instrument was drafted when aircraft where a nascent technology and decades before the jet aircraft we see everywhere today were even conceived.And yet, it introduced certain liability principles that remain relevant today.That is quite extraordinary and shows remarkable foresight on the part of the drafters.Nevertheless, it became increasingly clear over the years that the 'Warsaw system', 1 was no longer fit for purpose.A revised instrument was needed to simplify the liability regime and adapt it to the realities of modern civil aviation, including changing economic and social needs.The origins of MC99 have been mapped elsewhere.2 It should nevertheless be noted that it did not originate solely as an initiative of Member States but significantly from industry alsoan acknowledgement that airlines, passengers and 'Editorial to the Special Edition of Air and Space Law on the 25th Anniversary of the Montreal Convention 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 | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.052 | 0.020 |
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".