Whose regional expertise? Political geographies of knowledge in the European Union
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines the production of geographical expertise inside the European Union (EU) bureaucracy in Brussels. My question is not what EU policy professionals know, but how they deploy specific knowledge claims as expertise. Drawing from 62 interviews with 42 policy professionals, mostly in Brussels, I focus empirically on one facet of one policy: the eastern direction of the European Neighbourhood Policy and the efforts of the ‘new’ or post-2004 member states to project regional expertise about the eastern neighbourhood within EU institutions. In conceptual terms, I investigate the intellectual and social technologies by which expert authority is accomplished. The article illuminates the ways in which policy professionals script political space in terms of particular kinds of places to be dealt with by specific agents in specific kinds of ways. The interview material enables me to examine such processes of knowledge production in greater detail than is allowed by the conventional ‘big picture’ analyses of European integration.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it