MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2435244796 · doi:10.1057/9780230367579_7

The Treaty of Maastricht: Designing the European Union

2012· book-chapter· en· W2435244796 on OpenAlexaff
Colette Mazzucelli

Bibliographic record

VenuePalgrave Macmillan UK eBooks · 2012
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEuropean Union Policy and Governance
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaastricht TreatyEuropean unionEconomic and monetary unionEuropean integrationSingle Euro Payments AreaPolitical unionPolitical scienceSovereigntyEuropean debt crisisInternational tradeSingle marketPoliticsPolitical economyEconomyEconomicsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The decision to create the European Union (EU), a unique achievement in the history of European construction, was a decisive step taken in the Kantian tradition of international relations. In 1991, the member states of the European Community (EC) negotiated the Treaty on European Union (TEU) to establish a single European currency and to create a new supranational institution, the European Central Bank (ECB). National governments decided to delegate their decision-making in monetary affairs to the ECB and to pool sovereignty in a key sector of domestic responsibility. The landmark agreement to place Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) in the first, or EC, pillar of the newly formed European Union was depicted by Commission President Jacques Delors as the ‘tiger in the tank’ of European integration. Two other pillars, the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFPS) and Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) were created as a result of agreement in the Intergovernmental Conference on Political Union (ICG-PU), which concluded at the same time as that of the Intergovernmental Conference on Economic and Monetary Union (IGC-EMU). Integration did not advance as far or as deep in negotiations on Political Union.

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 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)0.004
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.909
Threshold uncertainty score0.879

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations6
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePalgrave Macmillan UK eBooksSame topicEuropean Union Policy and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207