Process, Responsibility and Inclusion in EU Constitutionalism
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper it looks at some of the normative questions which frame debates about the EU constitutional architecture. Its main objective is to identify the core facets of a ‘responsible and inclusive EU constitutionalism’, and to argue for a focus on process, freedom, fairness and democracy as well as formal constitution–building within the debates inside and outside the Convention running up to the Intergovernmental Conference anticipated for 2003/2004. A model using the work of Canadian political theorist James Tully is constructed. The paper applies this framework in order to analyse some aspects of the work of the Convention on the Future of the Union, looking especially at questions of autonomy, representativity, internal dynamics, deliberation, receptiveness, and decision–making. The interim conclusion is drawn that the Convention method contains within itself the seeds of a critical and reflexive approach to EU constitutionalism.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it