MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W805211758 · doi:10.1163/9789004260641_021

The Malaise Affecting the Global Uniform Effectiveness of the Montreal Convention, 1999 (MC99)

2013· book-chapter· en· W805211758 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
George N. Tompkins

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Law and Aviation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMalaiseConventionPolitical scienceMeteorologyGeographyLawMedicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Montreal of 1999, hereinafter referred to as MC99, conceived and created to modernize and consolidate the [fragmented] Warsaw Convention liability system, which since 1929 had governed the liability of air carriers for passenger death and bodily injury, and in the carriage of baggage and cargo, came into force on November 4, 2003. The principal benefits of MC99 are in favor of the citizen passengers of these non-Party States and for the airlines of same. There are no disadvantages for these citizens or airlines by ratification, acceptance, approval or accession of MC99. Court decisions illustrate the disadvantages involved for passengers and airlines arising from the non-ratification of MC99. EU Regulation 261/2004 provides for specified fixed compensation in the event of the cancellation of a flight originating at an airport in the EU. This chapter presents remedies for the malaise threatening the universal uniformity of the MC99 liability rules. Keywords: EU Regulation 261/2004; malaise threatening; MC99 liability rules; Montreal of 1999 (MC 99); non-Party States; Warsaw liability system

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.228
Threshold uncertainty score0.453

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.009
Scholarly communication0.0070.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0050.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.250 · 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
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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicInternational Law and AviationFrench-language works237,207