MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2423268945 · doi:10.1057/9780230367579_4

The 1965 Merger Treaty: The First Reform of the Founding European Community Treaties

2012· book-chapter· en· W2423268945 on OpenAlexaff
Finn Laursen

Bibliographic record

VenuePalgrave Macmillan UK eBooks · 2012
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInternational Arbitration and Investment Law
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParliamentTreatyPolitical scienceCommissionEuropean commissionLawEuropean communityEuropean court of justiceCouncil of MinistersPublic administrationEuropean Union lawEuropean unionInternational tradeBusinessPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

After the entry into force of the Paris and Rome treaties there were three European Communities (EC). They had separate ‘executives’ in the form of the High Authority of the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) and one Commission for the European Economic Community (EEC) and another Commission for the European Atomic Energy Community (EAEC or EURATOM). The three Communities also had separate Councils of Ministers. However, when the Treaties of Rome were negotiated it was decided that the three Communities would share the European Court of Justice (ECJ) and the Parliamentary Assembly. No single Commission was created in 1957 because the negotiators wanted to avoid a re-opening of the discussions of the powers of the High Authority (Houben 1965–6, 71). The Assembly incidentally started calling itself the European Parliament in March 1962 (Gerbet 2007, 194). These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.052
Threshold uncertainty score0.114

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0050.007
Scholarly communication0.0110.005
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0070.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.185 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations2
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePalgrave Macmillan UK eBooksSame topicInternational Arbitration and Investment LawFrench-language works237,207