MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7152394330 · doi:10.24198/jphp.v6i2.2247

Faulty Implementation of Flight Delay Compensation in Indonesian Regulation: A Study Based on the Montreal Convention

2025· article· W7152394330 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Nicholas Velly, Rachminawati Rachminawati

Bibliographic record

VenueJurnal Poros Hukum Padjadjaran · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Law and Aviation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndonesianConventionLegislationCompensation (psychology)NormativeAviationCover (algebra)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As the Montreal Convention has been ratified by Indonesia, the main regulation concerning aviation in Indonesia has not been updated to follow the standard upheld by the Montreal Convention, especially for any compensation for passengers and baggage. This research aims to the compliance of national legislation towards international obligations, especially in compensation for delayed flights. This research will also delve into the terms & conditions of Indonesian airlines serving international flights as they are the most affected to any regulatory change. This research is an empirical normative method where research results shows that the national legislation is not up to par with the Montreal Convention while Indonesian airlines have adapted to use International Convention in their terms & conditions to make up for the outdated regulation. This paper will highlight the difference in standard employed under the Montreal Convention and the current flight Indonesian regulation with a general conclusion to update current regulation. A recommendation on the current regulation would be to create a reimbursement system to cover the compensation for the passenger.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.104
Threshold uncertainty score0.206

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.311 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJurnal Poros Hukum PadjadjaranSame topicInternational Law and AviationFrench-language works237,207