Air Travel, Accidents and Injuries: Why the New Montreal Convention\nis Already Outdated
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The 1999 Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air (the "Montreal Convention") came into force in 2003. It is the latest in a series of attempts to replace a number of variations on the 1929 Warsaw Convention with a single agreement which regulates the rights and liabilities of international air carriers, their passengers and shippers. At the time, the Montreal Convention was hailed as providing better protection and compensation for victims of air accidents. However despite its recent adoption, in relation to claims for death and personal injuries the Montreal Convention is still firmly planted in the outdated terminology of its predecessor. The effect of this is that many passengers suffering injuries during international carriage are still left without a claim. For example, it is now well established that mental injuries are generally not recognized under the Convention. However, claims for certain injuries which are well associated with air travel - such as Deep Vein Thrombosis (also colloquially known as "economy class syndrome') - are also excluded. This is the recent finding of courts in a number of different jurisdictions, but most significantly in class actions in Britain and Australia. With such results, it is suggested that the basis for excluding these claims under the new Convention should be reconsidered.
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 | 0.012 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.024 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".