Voli charter e pacchetti turistici
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article examines the evolution in the field of charter flights in the carriage by air of passengers. Charter flights have been the cheap alternative to scheduled flights, basically monopolized by the flag airlines. \n \nThe radical change in the regulatory framework has allowed entry of low cost companies. The latters, while operating on radically different parameters, has eroded a portion of the market for charter operators. Nowdays, The inclusive tour market depends to a large extent on charter flights. Arises in this regard, the problem of identifying the carrier liable for the carriage. The problem today, however, seems to have solution by rules on actual carrier introduced by Montreal Convention of 2009. European legislation has to be considered. Council Regulation EC 261/2004 shall also be considered. It applies to scheduled carriers as well as non-scheduled carriers. Directive 90/314/EEC of 13 June 1990 (now implemented in Italy by "code of tourism" of 2011). It would be desirable to adopt a new uniform convention for "all inclusive packages" compatible with the Montreal Convention and with the EU rules.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.050 | 0.017 |
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".