MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W106365940

Shaping the new architecture of the EU System of Judicial remedies: comment on Inuit

2014· article· en· W106365940 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Law Review · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEuropean and International Law Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnnulmentLegislatureLawArchitectureJudicial reviewPolitical scienceLaw and economicsMeaning (existential)SociologyPhilosophyHistory
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The much-awaited judgment in the Inuit case is critical for the application of the new standing conditions for private parties in actions for annulment. The Court defined the crucial concept of regulatory within the meaning of the third limb of art.263(4) TFEU as an act of general application other than a legislative act. The repercussions of this definition go, however, far beyond the revised locus standi rules applicable to private parties in actions for annulment. Critically, it has a direct bearing upon the right to effective judicial protection and, hence, upon the completeness of the EU system of judicial remedies. Pre-Lisbon, the latter was widely criticised for being prone to gaps. In Inuit, the Court relied upon the new art.19(1) TEU in order to demonstrate that the EU system of judicial remedies has now been rendered complete. This article will assess whether the system's post-Lisbon architecture has filled the gaps concerning the judicial protection of the individual.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.964
Threshold uncertainty score0.232

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.252 · 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