MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1968754265 · doi:10.7202/043728ar

L'ambivalence du statut juridique des biens et services culturels en droit communautaire : les principes de libre circulation et de libre prestation

2005· article· fr· W1968754265 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueLes Cahiers de droit · 2005
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolish Legal and Social Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEuropean Commission
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical scienceCirculation (fluid dynamics)AmbivalenceArtPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
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 score0.443
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.274 · 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