Bibliographic record
Abstract
After Maastricht, the Treaty of Amsterdam was the second Treaty that was concluded under the aegis of the Dutch Presidency (first half of 1997). The organisation of the Intergovernmental Conference (IGC) leading to this new treaty had already been agreed upon in 1991. It was a concession to those who had hoped for a more ambitious outcome in Maastricht. Amsterdam was therefore in the first place a follow-up treaty rather than an agreement leading to historic steps. This does not mean however that one should downplay its results. It laid the foundations for the development of the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) and allowed for the integration of Schengen into the Treaty on European Union. It was also a first attempt to prepare for the upcoming enlargement to a EU of more than 20 member states. Following the 1993 Copenhagen Council it had become clear that the countries of Central and Eastern Europe had the ambition to become full EU members. Seen the differences in economic and political development, several Western European capitals started to question to possibility to always move ahead jointly and flexible integration became a hotly debated issue. 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 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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.035 | 0.009 |
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".