Topical issues of the regulation of international air carriage: the liability of an air carrier with respect to passengers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis deals with those issues in regulation of international air carriage, which are in the centre of interest of passengers. Author focuses on two key legal instruments establishing different regimes of air carrier's liability. The first one is the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, also known as the Montreal Convention. The second is European regulation no. 261/2004, also known as the Air Passengers' Rights Regulation. The key question is whether these liability regimes are completely separate or they overlap. After introductory chapter, Chapter 2 follows, dealing with historical development of legal regulation in the field of air carriage liability. Evolution of the so called Warsaw system is described and the Montreal Convention and some of the most important European regulations are presented. Next chapter focuses on theoretical aspects of air carrier's liability in the light of Czech civil law jurisprudence. These findings are applied both to the Montreal Convention and to the regulation no. 261/2004. Provisions of the Montreal Convention are examined in Chapter 4. Scope of application as well as the most problematic terms such as "accident" or "bodily injury" are discussed. Some well known courts' findings are presented to demonstrate how...
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".