An Assessment of the Effect of the 1944 Chicago Convention on the Air Carrier’s Duty of Airworthiness under the Carriage of Goods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Our understanding of airworthiness as the fitness of the aircraft in all respects to encounter the ordinary perils of the air that could be expected on her journey, and deliver the goods safely to their destination is a confirmation of the fact that the responsibility is heavy for the air carrier upon reception, carriage and delivery of the goods. The traditional liability regime in airfreight is contained in the Warsaw System of Conventions and the Montreal Convention 1999. The coexistence[i] of these laws creates challenges in obtaining a uniform liability scheme for the loss, damage and delay of goods on transit[ii]. The question, however, is how useful could the Chicago Convention 1944 be in determining the air carrier’s liability? This is more so because the following Warsaw[iii] and Montreal Conventions have to be differentiated from the Chicago convention of 1944, as Chicago deals with public international law looking at technical standards, licensing, freedom of air, accident investigation or security issues. This article therefore introduces the major aspects of the Chicago Convention and subsequently its nexus with the air carrier’s duty of airworthiness. [i] See p.4 of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development UNCTAD Report on its eleventh session, Sao Paolo consensus para 59, www.unctad.org [ii] The air carrier is liable under the convention for delay and for the loss of or damage to the goods, provided that the occurrence that caused the prejudice took place during the carriage by air. [iii] The Warsaw Convention is the informal title for Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to International Transportation by Air, concluded at Warsaw, Poland, opened for signature October 12, 1929, 49 Stat. 3000, T.S. No. 876, 137 L.N.T.S. 11, reprinted in 49 U.S.C.A. app. at 430 (West Supp. 1976) (adhered to by the United States June 27, 1934).
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 | 0.014 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.002 |
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".