The 1970 and 1975 Budget Treaties: Enhancing the Democratic Architecture of the Community
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The treaties signed in 1970 and 1975 are often called the Budget Treaties, and they have so far lived a fairly anonymous life in histories of the EU/EC. Despite their somewhat mundane name, there is good reason to pay closer attention to them because the creation of these treaties can tell us something new about how choices for democratic and institutional design have been made. The 1970-treaty gave the European Parliament (EP) its first new powers since the Rome Treaty in respect of the community’s budgetary process, and these were further strengthened in the 1975-treaty. The latter treaty also gave birth to the European Court of Auditors (CoA), called the financial consciousness of the community (Kutchner 1977). We now know that the EP has been granted further powers in every subsequent treaty amendment, a development that reached a zenith with the 2010 Lisbon Treaty where the EP was granted co-decision status in practically all policy areas. But what retrospectively looks like a continuous development could not have been predicted in the first half of the 1970s. 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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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.
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".