The Warsaw Convention: A Cat With Nine Lives Walks the Plank One More Time
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This comment advocates elimination of the liability limits imposed under the Warsaw Convention in the event of an aviation accident. The comment first examines the history of the Warsaw Convention. Next, the comment looks at application of a subjective test to prove willful misconduct in order to overcome such liability limits. The application of a subjective test is analyzed in the context of two recent cases. Legislative intent in approving recent changes to the applicable Warsaw Convention language is also covered. The comment then calls for use of an objective test to establish willful misconduct and recommends ratification of the 1999 Montreal Convention eliminating liability limits altogether. Finally, this piece concludes with a special addendum analyzing the feasibility of removing liability limits after the events of September 11, 2001.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.017 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.008 |
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".