European Parliament vote will raise more TTIP doubts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Subject The European Parliament and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. Significance The last-minute decision of the European Parliament (EP) to postpone a June 10 debate and vote on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) has exposed important divisions among its members (MEPs) over whether and how closer EU-US economic ties can be secured. While non-binding at this stage, the debate and vote would have provided important guidance to the European Commission on its priorities and room for manoeuvre as it engages in further negotiations with the United States. TTIP must ultimately be ratified by the EP, which has voted down international agreements in the past. Impacts The EP's difficulties in finalising its views could constrain the Commission in the TTIP negotiations. However, given the EP's ultimate veto over the deal, time spent now on hammering out an ISDS formula it could accept may not be wasted. Any rejection of TTIP, particularly over ISDS, could raise questions over future international trade deals premised on deep integration. TTIP rejection could even jeopardise concluded trade deals awaiting ratification, such as that between the EU and Canada. Progress on TTIP is among the measures sought by UK Prime Minister David Cameron before his EU membership referendum.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.024 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.094 | 0.037 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".