The New Functionalist Approach of the ECJ Towards the European Freedom of Movement and Residency: Some Lessons from a Constitutional Comparative Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: Based on a constitutional comparative analysis, with reference to the Canadian and the American experiences concerning the legitimacy of durational residency requirements, the paper suggests that in a territorial pluralistic legal order the free movement and the equal treatment principle between nationals can be evaluated according to an individual right perspective or, alternatively, as functional interests. This means that limitations to free movement and equal treatment can be accepted to the extent that they reflect a fair compromise between national cohesion and self-government interests, a balance usually struck by intergovernmental relations. This pattern is applied to the EU framework. Despite some statements suggest a fundamental right nature to both free movement and equal treatment, the relevant ECJ case law seems to maintain a functional reading of the above mentioned principles. It has changed, however, the usual frame of reference: no longer a freedom instrumental to market integration, but rather to the construction of a supranational polity.
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 | 0.023 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.036 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".