Overcoming ‘Frankenfoods’ and ‘secret courts’: the\nresilience of EU trade policy. College of Europe Policy Brief #9.18
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite vocal contestation and fears of domestic\ninstitutional deadlock over its trade negotiations,\nthe European Union has proven resilient in its trade\npolicy, notably by concluding bilateral trade and\ninvestment agreements with important partners,\nincluding two across the North Atlantic, Canada\nand Mexico.\n> A professionally orchestrated NGO campaign\nagainst TTIP and CETA that fed scepticism in several\nEU member states was crowned with mixed\nsuccess. Whereas TTIP negotiations were put on\nhold, CETA finally proceeded. The lack of a broad\npan-European opposition and the strong\nconsensual decision-making processes in the EU\nincentivised policy-makers to accommodate\nobjections, tread carefully and craft compromise.\n> This process has been further facilitated by the May\n2017 Singapore ruling of the Court of Justice of the\nEU which created room for trade agreements to be\nsplit according to exclusive and shared\ncompetences. As a result, new agreements such as\nthose with Singapore or Japan now typically\nembrace three agreements in order to expedite\nratification: trade, investment protection and\npolitical cooperation.\n> Separating trade and investment agreements\nmakes it more difficult for special interests to hold\nfree trade agreements hostage and locates\nparliamentary scrutiny at the European level, while\ninvestment agreements face additional ratification\nby member state parliaments – and a pending\nCourt Opinion.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".