MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1543342107

Integration in Criminal Matters and the Role of the Court of Justice

2011· article· en· W1543342107 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEuropean Criminal Justice and Data Protection
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChampionPolitical scienceCompetence (human resources)LawCriminal justiceEconomic JusticeCriminal courtTheory of criminal justiceLaw and economicsSociologyPsychologyInternational lawSocial psychology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article outlines the role of the Court of Justice in pushing legal integration within the single market, and asks whether the Court is likely to, and whether it should, have the same role within Police and Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters. The conclusion is, unsurprisingly, negative: integration in criminal matters is and will remain a very different process from market integration, and the same can be said of the role to be played by the Court of Justice. At the heart of this distinction lies the dissimilar nature of the aims that Member States have set out to achieve, as well as the specific role that individual rights play within these two areas of Union competence. These disparities dictate a peculiar approach to integration in criminal matters, as well as a distinctive agenda for individual litigation that, in the likely majority of cases, will — and should — drive the Court towards functioning as a check on integration, rather than its champion.

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)0.003
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.679
Threshold uncertainty score0.498

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.244 · 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