The concept of 'bodily injury' under the Montreal Convention 1999
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A perennial problem in applying international conventions is terminology - especially where consistency of application is important in preserving the uniformity of intemational law. Not only is the meaning of the words an issue, especially where there is an authentic version in more than one official language, but also those words must be given meaning within the jurisdiction where they are to be applied. In jurisdictions without a common law background, (the English version is one of six authentic versions), the temi would include psychiatric disorder or mental injury. In common law jurisdictions, most prominently English law the term 'bodily injury' is not used elsewhere than in these conventions, although it appears in insurance policies. The sue of protecting the consumer is a key issue under Montreal Convention. The theme of this thesis is to predict the future interpretation of the Montreal's term 'bodily injury' in the light of the spirit of the twenty-first century and the existing medical and legal sciences at the time of agreeing the Montreal Convention should include both physical and mental injuries.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 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".