MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Judicial Legitimacy in the European Union

2020· book-chapter· en· W3126013006 on OpenAlexaff
Jan Komárek

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEuropean and International Law Studies
Canadian institutionsCentre for International Governance Innovation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLegitimacyPolitical scienceInterpretation (philosophy)LawDoctrinePoliticsSection (typography)PragmatismEconomic JusticeJudicial reviewLaw and economicsEuropean unionSociologyEpistemologyPhilosophyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The chapter begins with some reflections on the concept of legitimacy, as it is used in the debates on the EU and its judicial system, particularly the ECJ. In the following section, it seeks to present a framework for studying the ECJ’s legitimacy, which does justice to its dual role: to decide particular cases and at the same time to fulfil much wider functions in the EU political system. The third section then focuses on the perennial problem of judicial legitimacy in the Western legal tradition: how to legitimize creative moments of judicial interpretation of law, which are at the same time unavoidable and deeply problematic for what is sometimes called the liberal doctrine of politics. The fourth section looks in some detail at the recent turn to semantic pragmatism and its relationship to the democratic theory and discusses some of its shortcomings.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.926
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.002

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.239 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations21
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEuropean and International Law StudiesFrench-language works237,207