The Fifth Jurisdiction under the Montreal Liability Convention: Wandering American or Wandering Everybody
Bibliographic record
Abstract
TJHE 31ST SESSION of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Assembly in 1995 issued a mandate to the ICAO Council requiring them to revise the Warsaw System.'The ICAO prepared a draft Convention and presented it to the International Conference on Air Law ("Conference"), held in Montreal from May 10-28, 1999.The draft was a product of intensive consultations by the Legal Committee, Secretarial Study Group, and Special Group on the Modernization and Consolidation of the Warsaw System.One-hundred twenty-one Contracting States attended the Conference.On May 28, 1999, 105 Contracting States, one non-Contracting State, and one regional organization signed the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air in Montreal ("Montreal Convention").2The Montreal Convention is regarded as a fair and reasonable compromise between countries to improve the international ret This article is based on a research paper I prepared under the supervision of ProfessorJames L. Devall during my LL.
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 | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.028 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.022 | 0.023 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 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".