MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2799407902 · doi:10.5944/rdp.101.2018.21982

Nuevas reflexiones sobre la Directiva (UE) 2016/618 a la vista de la Opinión 1/15 del Tribunal de Justicia de 26 de julio 2017

2018· article· en· W2799407902 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Susanna Villani

Bibliographic record

VenueRevista de Derecho Político · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEuropean Criminal Justice and Data Protection
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDirectivePolitical scienceTribunalHumanitiesMember statesOrder (exchange)LawEuropean unionBusinessPhilosophyInternational trade

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract:Over the last decades, it has arisen the need for increased cooperation betweenlaw enforcement authorities in making more systematic use of the data furnished by those moving to and from the States in order to prevent, detect, investigate and prosecute terrorism and other serious crimes. On 21 April 2016 the Council adopted Directive 2016/681 in order to regulate PNR data transfer from the airlines to the Member States, as well as the processing of this data by the competent authorities. Its validity, with particular reference to the balance between needs of security and the respect of fundamental rights, such as the right to respect for private life and the right to the protection of personal data, could be challenged after the conclusions reached by the CJEU in its Opinion on the EU-Canada agreement on PNR transfer.Summary1. INTRODUCTION. 2. HISTORICAL AND LEGAL BACKGROUND: ASSESSING THE NECESSITY OF AN ACT ON PROCESSING PNR DATA AT EU LEVEL. 3. DIRECTIVE 2016/681 ON PNR DATA: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS. 4. THE CJEU OPINION 1/15 ON THE EU-CANADA AGREEMENT: WHAT CHALLENGES FOR THE PNR DIRECTIVE? 5. FINAL REMARKS Resumen:En la última década, ha surgido la necesidad de una mayor cooperación entre las autoridades nacionales de los diferentes Estados para hacer un uso más sistemático de los datos entre ellos para luchar contra el terrorismo y otros crímenes. El 21 de abril de 2016, el Consejo adoptó la Directiva 2016/681 para regular la transferencia de los datos PNR de las líneas aéreas a los Estados miembros, así como el tratamiento de estos datos por las autoridades competentes. Su validez, en relación con el equilibrio entre las necesidades de seguridad y el respeto de los derechos fundamentales, como el derecho al respeto de la vida privada y el derecho a la protección de los datos personales, podría ser impugnada como consecuencia de la opinión emitida por el TJUE sobre el acuerdo UE-Canadá en relación a la transferencia de datos personales.Sumario:1. Introducción; 2. Panorama histórico y jurídico: evaluaciones sobre la necesidad de un acto de la UE en la utilización de datos; 3. Directiva 2016/681: un análisis crítico; 4. La Opinión 1/15 del Tribunal de Justicia: qué desafíos para la Directiva 2016/681? 5. Observaciones finales.

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)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.037
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.429
Threshold uncertainty score0.853

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.037
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0090.010
Scholarly communication0.0210.007
Open science0.0040.005
Research integrity0.0280.024
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.006

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 head0.385
Teacher spread0.351 · 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
GenreCommentary

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

Citations4
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevista de Derecho PolíticoSame topicEuropean Criminal Justice and Data ProtectionFrench-language works237,207