MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7009520565

El contrato de seguro en el transporte aeronáutico a la luz del convenio de montreal de 1999

2013· article· es· W7009520565 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueDialnet (Universidad de la Rioja) · 2013
Typearticle
Languagees
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicComparative International Legal Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLatin AmericansLiabilityContext (archaeology)Air transport
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

El presente artículo se refiere al estudio del Contrato de Seguro Aeronáutico y sutratamiento legal actual a nivel internacional, teniendo en cuenta la gran cantidad de riesgos que la actividad aeronáutica implica, los diversos intereses jurídicamente tutelados que intervienen, la protección que por tradición se ha dado a las compañías aéreas a fin de evitar que ante un siniestro perezcan económicamente, se hizo casi desde sus inicios, que la actividad fuera pionera en la protección de sus pasajeros con la constitución de pólizas de responsabilidad civil. ¿Cuándo intervienen las compañías aseguradoras en caso de un siniestro? ¿Cuál es su responsabilidad indemnizatoria? ¿Dónde deben indemnizar a las víctimas y sus causahabientes?El objetivo del presente artículo es dar a conocer cuándo juegan algún papel importante los reaseguros y pools de aseguradores, el ámbito de aplicación legal y el análisis de la normativa en esta materia y sus aspectos prácticos.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.536
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.278 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it