A Changing European Security and Defense Architecture and Its Impact on Turkey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since the 1991 Maastricht Treaty, the European Union countries have been trying to form a common security and defense identity as one facet of the European Union unification process. The efforts to create "separable but not separate" European forces within NATO have accelerated in the last three years and changed direction toward creating an autonomous "European Security and Defense Policy (ESDP)" within the framework of the EU. This policy concerns some non-EU European NATO allies, such as Turkey, and Norway, as well as non-European NATO allies, such as the United States and Canada. The developments in the European security structure in the aftermath of the French-British St. Malo Declaration (1991) have profoundly changed the discussion of an all-European force. The ESDP is an evolving process. The impact of the latest developments on Turkey's position in the European security system and Turkey's security policies is significant. Turkish national security interests compel it to be part of a new European security system and of security arrangements in the post- Cold War era. Turkey should have some institutional links to European Security and Defense Policy that would enable it to influence the decisions of its European counterparts on the matters that could affect Turkey's interests. European security cannot be provided without Turkey. How Turkey will fit into the new European security system will depend on its European membership process, its unique geostrategic position and its special relationship with the United States.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".