MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7063995978

Aktuální otázky regulace mezinárodní letecké přepravy

2011· dissertation· en· W7063995978 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueDigital Repository (National Repository of Grey Literature) · 2011
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSuperconducting Materials and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLiabilityConventionStrict liabilityTreatyUnificationAir transportKey (lock)Product liability
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This thesis deals with topical issues of international air law, namely international regulation of air carrier's liability in carriage of passengers, baggage and cargo. The first multilateral treaty to consider and unify this topic was the Warsaw Convention in 1929. It prescribed the main requirements of the documents of carriage, i.e. the passenger ticket, the baggage check and the air waybill. In particular, the air carrier is liable for personal injury or death of passengers, loss or damage of baggage or cargo and for damage resulting from delay. The key points of the liability regime governed by the Warsaw Convention are presumptive liability and the maximum liability limits expressed in French Gold Francs. Due to the subsequent development of air transport these rules had to be modernized. The Warsaw Convention was amended with several Protocols and a Supplementary Convention, which together create the so-called "Warsaw system". The purpose of these documents was, amongst other things, to tighten up the liability regime while trying to establish strict liability and raise the liability limits. In 1999 a further unification of air carrier's liability took place with the creation of the Montreal Convention. Although it adopted some key liability provisions from previous documents, it stipulated...

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 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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.336
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.205 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDigital Repository (National Repository of Grey Literature)Same topicSuperconducting Materials and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207