MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2797231123

Data Retention under the Proposal for an EU Entry/Exit System (EES) Analysis of the impact on and limitations for the EES by Opinion 1/15 on the EU/Canada PNR Agreement of the Court of Justice of the European Union

2017· article· en· W2797231123 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Teresa Quintel, Mark Cole

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Repository and Bibliography (University of Luxembourg) · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicTaxation and Legal Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceAgreementBusinessLawInternational economicsInternational tradeAccountingEconomicsPhilosophy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This legal opinion concerns the question whether and how the recent Opinion 1/15 of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) on the Draft EU/Canada PNR Agreement impacts the Proposal for a Regulation on an Entry/

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.171
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.238
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.171
Threshold uncertainty score0.905

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1710.238
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.004
Bibliometrics0.0060.007
Science and technology studies0.0050.007
Scholarly communication0.0300.014
Open science0.0070.013
Research integrity0.0200.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.003

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations3
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueOpen Repository and Bibliography (University of Luxembourg)Same topicTaxation and Legal IssuesFrench-language works237,207