MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7161819606 · doi:10.82308/20940

L'article 29 de la convention de Montréal : clef de voûte de la responsabilité du transporteur aérien international

2010· dissertation· fr· W7161819606 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Laurent Chassot

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Law and Aviation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTreatyLiabilityConventionInternational lawUnificationDamagesTort

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present thesis deals with Article 29 of the Convention for Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, signed at Montreal on 28 May 1999 ("Montreal Convention"). Article 29 is a central provision in the scheme of liability of the international air carrier, because it assigns the respective roles of treaty and domestic law in this area. The provision exercises its interface-function between the Convention and the underlying domestic law in three ways: firstly, it deals with the basis of the claims in international carriage by air; secondly and mainly, it sets the principle of exclusivity of the Convention's liability scheme, with regard to any other basis of claim however founded; thirdly, as an exception to the former principle, it reserves the application of domestic law as to the questions of the standing to sue and the definition of recoverable damages under the Convention. The present work will examine in turns these three aspects and the legal issues they raise.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.667
Threshold uncertainty score0.669

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.007
Scholarly communication0.0100.002
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0070.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0280.004

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicInternational Law and Aviation→French-language works237,207→