Bibliographic record
Abstract
The European Union’s (EU) role in international trade has evolved from a defensive position during the 1960s and 1970s, to being a firm supporter of a rule-based multilateral trading system as a member of the Quad (US, EU, Japan and Canada) in the 1980s and to a role in which it aspires to leadership. Shifts in relative market power with the rise of emerging markets has, however, undermined the EU’s ability to shape outcomes. Thanks to a well-developed internal acquis, the EU has developed common policies on all trade and trade-related topics, but the normative power this provides has had little discernable impact on multilateral trade outcomes. The decision-making procedures of the EU have functioned tolerably well up to now thanks to Member States having confidence and trust in the way decisions are made and the way the Commission, as agent, is controlled. The need to integrate the European Parliament (EP) into decision-making procedures following the Lisbon (TFEU) Treaty is, however, likely to result in a period of uncertainty.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".