MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2016017172 · doi:10.1080/13501763.2011.560488

The Lisbon Strategy and the politicization of EU policy-making: the case of the Services Directive

2011· article· en· W2016017172 on OpenAlex
J. de V. Loder

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

VenueJournal of European Public Policy · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEuropean Union Policy and Governance
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParliamentDirectiveLisbon StrategyPoliticsEuropean unionPublic administrationMember statePolitical scienceState (computer science)Political economyPolicy makingMember statesEconomic systemEconomicsEconomic policyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This contribution explores how the Lisbon Strategy affected the politics of policy-making surrounding the Services Directive (2006). The Lisbon Strategy promoted a fundamental rethink of how to integrate service markets for enhancing the competitiveness of the European economy, without clear evidence that it was politically viable or even desired at the national level. Specifically, it examines how the Lisbon Strategy provoked the introduction of a radical policy idea without organizing a meaningful consultation with non-state actors at the preparatory stage. This mismatch between the ideational and organizational components resulted in a politicization of the process, eventually empowering the European Parliament.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.898
Threshold uncertainty score0.987

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.308
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