Bracing for Impact: The Montreal Convention 1999 a Quarter of a Century Later: An Insurance Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The year 2024 marked the twenty-fifth anniversary since the Montreal Convention 1999 was drafted and opened for signature. The attempts to modernize the Warsaw Convention Regime have been largely successful. One aspect of the Convention that has received comparatively less attention has been its interaction with aviation insurers. From its inception, the Convention has earnestly attempted to ensure continuity with its predecessor and safeguard its stated objective of legal uniformity in determining that the liability of an airline to its passengers and shippers is maintained. This is an important objective for insurers as legal certainty in assessing such liability and particularly the determination of jurisdiction is prized by insurers as they analyse, rate the premium, and, in this article’s context, adjust claims in the aftermath of a loss. At the same time, the remarkable improvement in the operational safety of air travel has, from an insurer’s perspective, required consideration of a partial repurposing of the Convention’s value in addressing the handling and adjustment of the smaller, so-called every day, claims that airline and their insurers typically face. Together with the explosion in passenger numbers, heightened consumer awareness and a re-evaluation of the impact of mental health during the intervening twenty-five years, it is a repurposing that is necessary to ensure the Convention maintains its relevance in the future.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".