Bibliographic record
Abstract
AS THIS commentary is being written, in early September, MPs are back from their summer holidays and demanding to know the government's negotiating position on Brexit.Will the UK remain in the European single market?What special deal might be struck for the banking sector?The Prime Minister refuses to say, arguing that a successful negotiator does not reveal her hand.This response at least has the merit of acknowledging that the terms of Brexit have to be negotiated with counterparts who have their own preferences and constraints regarding a deal.Not acknowledged, however, is that the UK's bargaining position is weak: the hand contains few cards of value.Once the clock is started, the UK faces the prospect in two years' time of defaulting to World Trade Organization (WTO) rules and bilateral agreements.This default position is dreadful for the UK, so a deal must be struck with EU partners.Any agreement must satisfy conditions at two levels: other states have to sign up to it, and the public at home have to accept it.There is a well-known theory that a government going into negotiations under tight domestic constraints will get a better deal from its fellows than a government with a free domestic hand.This suggests that the UK government can firmly insist on restraints on free movement of people in its negotiations with the rest of the EU, as its hands are tied domestically.Other governments will have to give way if an agreement is to be reached.Unfortunately, this logic is by no means impermeable.There are several strands to the negotiations.The UK has tied its hands on one: it is open to the counterparts to extract a high price on others.The highest price of all would be to exclude the UK from the
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 | 0.013 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.033 | 0.068 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.022 | 0.043 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.045 | 0.015 |
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".