MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Watchdogs of Subsidiarity: National Parliaments and the Logic of Arguing in the EU*

2006· article· en· W1969853139 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

VenueJCMS Journal of Common Market Studies · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEuropean Union Policy and Governance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubsidiarityPolitical scienceScrutinyLegislationDemocratic deficitProportionality (law)LawTreatyArgument (complex analysis)LegislatureDeclarationLaw and economicsPublic administrationCommissionDemocracyEuropean unionSociologyPoliticsEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The 2004 Constitutional Treaty features an ‘early warning system’ (EWS) in which national parliaments will scrutinize European legislative proposals to assess whether they comply with the principle of subsidiarity. In constructivist terms, this procedure effectively sets up the Commission and the national parliaments as interlocutors in an argument over when and how the EU should legislate. At a minimum, this system – which should be expanded to include proportionality – will alleviate the ‘democratic deficit’ by enhancing the parliamentary scrutiny of EU legislation. If it works well, it will improve the subsidiarity compliance of EU legislation and produce a clearer substantive definition of the principle.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.646
Threshold uncertainty score0.389

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.311 · 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