MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

European Democracy, the ‘Permissive Consensus’ and the Collapse of the EU Constitution

2007· article· en· W2033023254 on OpenAlexaff
Achim Hurrelmann

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Law Journal · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEuropean Union Policy and Governance
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPermissiveConstitutionDemocracyPolitical scienceEuropean unionLaw and economicsPolitical economyLawEconomicsInternational economicsPoliticsBiologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: The draft Constitution was an attempt to democratise the EU, while taking account of the problematic social preconditions for democracy at the Union level. Its failure demonstrates the need to pay greater attention to the nature of public support for the EU, and to the ways in which this support is related to the democratic quality of EU institutions. Contrary to what is often assumed, EU support can still be quite adequately described by the figure of a ‘permissive consensus’. For better or worse, attempts to democratise EU institutions might undermine this form of support.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.029
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.045
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.153

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0290.045
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0080.026
Scholarly communication0.0110.009
Open science0.0010.009
Research integrity0.0090.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.256 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations41
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Law JournalSame topicEuropean Union Policy and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207