MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405892486 · doi:10.25123/vej.v10i2.8418

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE MONTREAL CONVENTION IN INDONESIA’S AND AUSTRALIA’S AIR TRANSPORT LAWS ON CARRIER’S LIABILITY

2024· article· en· W4405892486 on OpenAlex
Hilda Yunita Sabrie

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueVeritas et Justitia · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Law and Aviation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLiabilityConventionLawStatutory lawDamagesPolitical scienceLegislatureBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Montreal Convention of 1999 establishes the legal responsibilities of carriers on international flights and has been ratified by numerous countries, including Indonesia and Australia. However, unlike Australia, Indonesia has yet to update its laws and regulations to align with the Convention’s provisions on carrier liability. This legislative gap may result in significant losses for air transportation service users who experience damages from aircraft accidents. This research examines the extent to which the liability provisions of the Montreal Convention have been incorporated into the national legal frameworks of Indonesia and Australia. The analysis employs three methodological approaches: statutory analysis, conceptual examination, and comparative study. The findings highlight the need for Indonesia to amend its regulations on carriers’ limited liability to comply with the standards set by the Montreal Convention, considering Australia’s best practices in its legal framework.

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.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.819
Threshold uncertainty score0.952

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.330 · 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