MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

International legal regulation of air baggage

2025· article· uk· W7116734567 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueAnalytical and Comparative Jurisprudence · 2025
Typearticle
Languageuk
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Law and Aviation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLiabilityDispose patternTreatyStrict liabilityTerminologyControl (management)Subject (documents)Object (grammar)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is established that the increase in airport security has led to the introduction of special rules for the carriage of baggage. Therefore, passengers are faced with a multitude of requirements arising from both airlines and national legislation. It is found that the concept of baggage is not defined by either treaty law or EU legislation. The use of terminology for the carriage of goods emphasizes the lack of specificity of this liability. The definition of baggage depends on its destination, according to which two liability regimes apply. It is noted that neither the concepts of “baggage” nor the concept of “goods” are defined by the Warsaw Convention. However, treaty law has decided to subject them to essentially identical rules, with the exception of two situations: the right to dispose of baggage during carriage and the provisions exempting from liability contained in Article 23(2) of the Warsaw Convention. Airlines determine the characteristics of the luggage that passengers can take with them on their journey. The international mechanisms for regulating the air carrier, which is the custodian of the luggage, are studied, it has the right to use, control and dispose of it. Custody of the luggage is mutual. The passenger transfers custody of his luggage to the carrier and from that moment the passenger ceases to be the custodian, remaining the owner of the luggage. Custody is mutual, since the passenger and the carrier do not simultaneously have custody of the luggage. This doctrinal study, through the concept of custody, allows us to understand the purpose of the liability regime that is imposed on the air carrier. The conclusions focus on the importance of the Montreal Convention, which establishes strict liability of an air carrier for damage resulting from the destruction, loss or damage of checked baggage, only because the event that caused the destruction, loss or damage occurred on board the aircraft or during any period during which the carrier had the checked baggage in its custody. The carrier may be exempted from liability only to the extent that the damage resulted from an inherent characteristic of the baggage itself or its defect. As in the case of liability for personal injury, the carrier is exempted from liability only for the fault of the injured party, this is called the inherent defect of the baggage.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.943
Threshold uncertainty score0.574

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.330 · 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