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 OpenAlexaboutno aff
Hilda Yunita Sabrie

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.150
Threshold uncertainty score0.298

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.005
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVeritas et JustitiaSame topicInternational Law and AviationFrench-language works237,207