L'ambivalence du statut juridique des biens et services culturels en droit communautaire : les principes de libre circulation et de libre prestation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L'article qui suit a pour objet d'analyser le statut juridique des biens et services en droit communautaire en vertu du principe de libre circulation. Il ressort de cette analyse que le traitement réservé aux biens et services culturels est ambivalent. Si, d'un côté, ces derniers sont compris dans la libéralisation des échanges communautaires (principes de libre circulation des marchandises (article 28, ex-article 30 Communauté européenne (CE) et libre prestation de services (article 49, ex-article 59 CE), d'un autre côté, les biens et services culturels sont l'objet d'un traitement particulier en raison de certaines dispositions du Traité instituant la Communauté européenne (article 151, ex-article 128 CE; article 30, ex-article 36 CE; article 46, ex-article 56 CE), de l'acquis jurisprudentiel (théorie des exigences impératives et des raisons impérieuses d'intérêt général) et du droit dérivé (la directive Télévision sans frontières).
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 | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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".