Bibliographic record
Abstract
International legal regimes are a factor in regulating relationships between subjects of international relations, constructive interaction, policy coordination and resolution of contradictions. When conflicts arise, the interaction of the legal systems of states, regional associations and international organizations can be both complementary and competitive in nature, affecting the legal qualification of the parties’ actions. Competitiveness manifests itself in the interpretation of the actions of the same entities within different jurisdictions. The conflict of interests of the parties, as confirmed by examples from the contractual legal practice of relations between the EU and the USA, Canada and a number of other countries, is quite surmountable. The cluster of contradictions characterizing the current situation on the European continent gives an existential character to the search by all parties for a rational strategy for resolving the crisis. The purpose of international law is to put contradictions into the legal plane in order to avoid escalation of tension in relations between the warring parties. An objective assessment of the positions of the world centers of power and the basic legal principles that guide them in the strategy of global presence requires taking into account the problems that gave rise to the replacement of the previous attitude towards «integration of integrations» by a direct clash of the parties. A critical analysis of the key areas of the EU’s implementation of external competencies, including sanctions (implemented with varying degrees of effectiveness in recent years), is important for understanding the strategy that Brussels is implementing. The current crisis is a serious test of the EU’s resistance to stress, and of the Union’s value system for resilience in unfavorable external conditions. The subject of this paper is the real possibilities of the European Union to offer an alternative to the confrontational scenario.
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 | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".