Gli Obblighi di protezione: profili in tema di contratto di trasporto
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Protection and care duties have given rise to a doctrinal discussion that seems to have recently been revived. \n The best subject matter for the observation of the above mentioned duties is maritime and air transport law where the debate has been enriched by many elements that have arisen from the Montreal Convention 1999, the reg. (EC) 261/2004 and 1177/2010, the Athens Convention 1975 as amended by the London Protocol 2002 and reg. (EC) 329 /2009. \nThe above provide mandatory regulation which introduces important new features: they outline the activities the duties of care imposed; they established a characteristic liability system that moves away from the traditional concept of fault and extend the protected time limit beyond the duration of the main performance. \n The aim of this research is to understand whether care and protection are in conflict with the traditional patterns of Italian civil law, or whether there is a way to recognize them as having clear position taking into consideration recent developments. Starting from an examination of the origins of the duties of care, this research focuses on understanding what the nature of the protection under the contract is and what its characteristics are. Therefore, using the knowledge from air and maritime law we can extend this understanding to civil law in order to contribute to the modernization of a system that has to deal with being part of a social and economic structure on a supranational level.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".