Integration in Criminal Matters and the Role of the Court of Justice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.052 | 0.079 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.030 | 0.044 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.038 | 0.022 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.019 |
| Research integrity | 0.022 | 0.020 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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.
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".