Regulation (EC) 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council from the carrier perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The topic of the diploma thesis is Regulation (EC) No. 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council from the perspective of the carrier. The aim of this work is to critically analyse 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, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 from the air carrier perspective and looking at the various angels of this Regulation which brings complications to the carrier's operation. Also to find an answer whether it reflects the current state of air transport and ensures the principle of proportionality. The work is divided into three chapters. The first chapter provides an overview of the individual conventions that have been adopted in the field of international civil aviation and have given a solid basis for the current regulation. These are, in particular, the Warsaw Convention, the Hague Protocol and the Montreal Convention. The second chapter deals with the general characteristics of Regulation 261/2004, discusses the procedural and substantive aspects of the regulation - determination of international jurisdiction, the question of jurisdiction through the Brussels...
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 | 0.007 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.018 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.006 |
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".