Parliamentary Functions in Cross-Border Cooperation: The Case of the Upper Rhine Council
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In our study, we aim to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the parliamentary dimension of cross-border cooperation by analyzing the case of the Upper Rhine Council. Our research is guided by the question: Does the Upper Rhine Council fulfil cross-border parliamentary functions in pursuit of policy goals? Based on an analysis of 69 resolutions published between 2016 and 2022 of the Upper Rhine Council, we empirically analyse the parliamentary functions the Upper Rhine Council fulfils, namely representation, articulation and scrutiny and explore to what extent the institution pursues its own policy objectives. In its representative function, the council exercises its articulation function not only vis-à-vis the Upper Rhine Conference, which it “accompanies” according to its founding agreement, but also vis-à-vis multiple institutions at various political levels of the three states bordering the Upper Rhine and vis-à-vis the EU. The articulation function is exercised multilaterally, across borders and levels. The Upper Rhine Council also formulates ex ante and ex post demands, which we have categorized between the articulation and control functions. The Upper Rhine Council is advocating primarily for legal regulations and procedural changes.
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 | 0.015 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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".