Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract How are foreign relations constitutionally structured in federal unions? How does the foreign affairs constitution of the EU—itself a federal union in all but name—compare to that of other federal unions? This book addresses these questions. It offers a comparative analysis of the constitutional framework in which foreign relations are conducted in four federal unions: the US, Canada, Belgium, and the EU. The EU takes up a special position in the book. By looking at the constitutional experience of other federal unions—two long-standing (the US and Canada), one of more recent pedigree (Belgium)—this book informs and contributes to debates on how the EU’s foreign affairs constitution should be structured. Over a decade since the Treaty of Lisbon entered into force, the EU’s foreign affairs constitution continues to evolve. New institutional practices emerge and cases continue to be brought before the Court of Justice of the European Union that require the Court in Luxembourg to interpret Treaty provisions on how the EU and the Member States are to conduct foreign relations. In this sense, the EU’s foreign affairs constitution—as is the case for the EU’s constitution as a whole—remains very much a fast-moving target. The pace of constitutional change is high, and there is a sustained need for critical and constructive legal analysis of that change. This book contributes to fulfilling this need.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.002 |
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.
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".