Con objeto de analizar los derechos de los consumidores y usuarios en contraste con los de las aerolíneas respecto de la contratación de vuelos.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Se analiza en ocasión de un caso ficticio planteado la adecuación a la legislación europea de algunas prácticas o situaciones que se generan en la contratación con aerolíneas cuando la otra parte es un consumidor. Se analiza cada situación respecto de diferentes variantes, estando entre estas el cobro de chek in, de la maleta o bolsa de mano, la indemnización por cancelación de vuelos o derechos del consumidor en caso de impedirse el embarque debido a una situación de overbooking. Para ello analizamos en mayor medida el reglamento 216/2004 y el Convenio de Montreal de 1999. Tras en análisis legal y doctrinal de estás prácticas, se plantea la posibilidad y viabilidad de reclamación en posible demanda. Se concluye con el resumen de aquellos conceptos que en el caso concreto planteado se considera viable reclamar.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.000 |
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.
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".