¿Es posible la elección de una jurisdicción más favorable para la indemnización, por dañoz causados en un accidente aéreo por error no humano?
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper focuses on the analysis of the possibilities according to national and \ninternational law in order to determine the possibility of the affected in a plane crash or their \nheirs, who will be entitled to receive royalties generated from the incident, to obtain a better \nrecognition of rights. \nAn initial analysis of air law, which primary dispositions focus on the severance terms \nthat are configured according to the plane crash, as well as an analysis of the differences \nbetween jurisdictions and how they apply the previously stated laws and treaties. \nConflicts of jurisdictions to which we refer in this paper, respond to differences that \narise according to international conventions and treaties, to which countries are signatories. \nSo in this particular case we refer to the Warsaw Convention, as well as the Convention for \nthe Unification of treaties, which contains the Montreal Convention regime......
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it