Constructing Common Cultures: The Ontological and Normative Dimensions of Law in the European Union and Mercosur
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Existing research suggests that the European Union (EU) has avoided the formal construction of a supranational culture. Theories in economic sociology predict that market building should entail the concomitant articulation of basic cultural material, above all of ontological and normative notions about the world. In this article we confirm that the EU has formally engaged in cultural construction. Through its system of secondary laws, the EU has in fact produced complex webs of ontological notions about the essence of objects, activities and agents, and of normative notions about the desirability of various situations. Analysis of the content of EU directives and regulations in the areas of working conditions, flora and fauna, and honey supports this claim. Analysis of national reactions and cultural contexts highlights the salience and distinctiveness of the emerging supranational culture. Evidence that Mercosur too has engaged in the production of ontological and normative notions suggests that, in line with the expectations of economic sociology, the EU is not unique, though the two markets can construct different notions when addressing identical subject matters. The implications of the findings for European enlargement and the comparative study of common markets are discussed.
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 | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.063 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".