Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract What does it mean to say that the European Union has a constitution—theoretically, but more importantly, practically? What sort of possibilities such assertion opens for various actors—politicians, legal professionals, or the general public? And what is the role of constitutional thinkers in establishing constitutional discourse as the dominant way in which European law is (or was) conceived after 1989? This volume seeks to answer such questions, with a special emphasis on the last one. ‘European Constitutional Imaginaries’ are the central focus of the book. These are sets of ideas and beliefs that help to motivate and at the same time justify the practice of government and collective self-rule established by the constitution (written or unwritten). Such imaginaries are as important as institutions and office-holders. They provide political action with an overarching sense and purpose recognized by those governed as legitimate. The book brings together reflections by lawyers, philosophers, sociologists, or political economists, who shed light on various constitutional imaginaries of Europe. They provide critical intellectual histories of particular legal approaches to European integration, and look behind the language of law to reach deeper insights into the contested history and political economy of Europe. They ask us to think about European law differently.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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 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".