Les politiques culturelles dans l'Europe communautaire : l'évolution du cadre juridique
Bibliographic record
Abstract
What place does Europe reserve for culture? In particular, does the legal framework make it possible for the cultures of member states to develop in the respect of their diversity, as stipulated in the Union Treaty ? We can, of course, prefer a generous vision of a composite Europe, where ideas circulate freely, as well as their creators and the latter's works. Given the European community's founding principles, we are tempted to see the EU'S legal order as the natural setting for the diffusion of European cultures. But the EU'S rationale mainly focusses on building a single market in a single space. From this angle, the perspective is not so idyllic. Although certain cultural goods can also be seen from an economic viewpoint (in that they are intended for circulation in commerce), their cultural value should not be overlooked. How does EU law handle this question ? Economic and cultural interests are not always compatible with each other. Under what circumstances does cultural specificity require a solution different from an economic one ? Does EU law really take into account the dimension of culture in the pursuit of its principal objectives ? All these questions receive different answers depending on the type of legislation (whether about taxation, authors' rights, the circulation of works of art). Given current legal texts, we can but hope for more awareness whenever cultural interests are at stake.
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.024 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 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".