The Warsaw System : a case for Thailand to ratify the Montreal Convention 1999 or not
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Warsaw Convention 1929 is the first international instrument relating to private international air law. It established a certain uniform set of regulations in the field of international carriage by air. This widely accepted Convention was later amended and supplemented by several instruments in order to adjust and adapt this uniform set of rules to the rapid growth of aviation industry. With the absence of consolidation, the result was total confusion created by the coexistence of multiple legal regimes of the Warsaw System. To modernize and consolidate the instruments of the Warsaw System into one single instrument, the Montreal Convention was adopted on May 28, 1999. The first two chapters of this thesis explore the Warsaw System and the Montreal Convention. The merits and demerits of the instruments are discussed as well as the future of the Montreal Convention 1999. In the last chapter, the related legal regimes of Thailand are introduced. A comparative study of the Thai laws and the international Conventions are carried out, with a view to determine the advantages and disadvantages for Thailand of becoming a party to the Conventions governing the international carriage by air. The conclusion is a call for Thailand to ratify the Montreal Convention 1999 which will soon come into force, as soon as possible.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".