MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2429344862 · doi:10.1057/9780230367579_5

The 1970 and 1975 Budget Treaties: Enhancing the Democratic Architecture of the Community

2012· book-chapter· en· W2429344862 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePalgrave Macmillan UK eBooks · 2012
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEuropean Monetary and Fiscal Policies
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTreatyParliamentDemocracyPolitical scienceDemocratic deficitLawPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.973
Threshold uncertainty score0.889

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.195
Teacher spread0.171 · 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