MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2978736064 · doi:10.5642/urceu.201901.09

Thank You, Next: An Analysis of Sweden's Non-Compliance with its Country-Specific Recommendations

2019· article· en· W2978736064 on OpenAlexafffund
Malcolm Thomson

Bibliographic record

VenueClaremont-UC Undergraduate Research Conference on the European Union · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEuropean Union Policy and Governance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersUniversity of VictoriaEuropean CommissionBrigham Young University
KeywordsEuropean unionCommissionEuropean commissionGovernment (linguistics)Corporate governanceCompliance (psychology)Economic governanceMember statesPolitical scienceStability and Growth PactEconomic and monetary unionEconomic policyInternational economicsEconomicsBusinessFinanceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Eurozone crisis forced the European Union (EU) to reconcile with the absence of supranational macroeconomic and fiscal coordination within its Economic and Monetary Union (EMU). Efforts to minimise this imbalance are seen in the creation of the European Semester, a comprehensive framework that includes the issuing of voluntary Country-Specific Recommendations (CSRs) by the Commission to EU member states. This paper analyses Swedish CSR compliance and argues that Sweden’s persistent level of non-compliance is caused by contrasting positions that exist between the Swedish government and the Commission in the area of European macroeconomic integration. This contrast sees the Swedish government actively working to resist participation in supranational macroeconomic governance; the same policy area that the Commission is concurrently working to strengthen through the Semester. This paper also highlights the continued power that individual member states have to act in their domestic interests in the arena of European macroeconomic governance.

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)0.009
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.954
Threshold uncertainty score0.945

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.185
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.203 · 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
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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClaremont-UC Undergraduate Research Conference on the European UnionSame topicEuropean Union Policy and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207