International air transport: enforcement of rights of passengers under Regulation (EC) No. 261/2004 in the light of the judgments of the European Court of Justice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
- International air transport: enforcement of rights of passengers under Regulation (ES) No. 261/2004 in the light of judgments of the European court of Justice The subject of this thesis is the enforcement of the rights of passengers under the Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights. The thesis is divided into five chapters. In the first chapter the particular conventions which have been concluded in the area of the international air transportation and which have influenced this area greatly are covered, in particular the Warsaw and Montreal Conventions. The second chapter focuses on the Regulation 261/2004 itself. Particular situations which establish the right for compensation to the passengers are described and analyzed. The issue of the definition of the term "extraordinary circumstances" has not been omitted either. The provisions of the Regulation 261/2004 are interpreted in the light of the SDEU judiciary. The conclusion of the second chapter consists of the future view and the view on the Regulation 261/2004 de lege ferenda. The third chapter follows the substantive regulation by its...
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 | 0.010 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.017 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
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".