Dispelling a Myth? The Fathers of Europe and the Construction of a Euro‐Identity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: There is a broad agreement on the fact that today there is a wide gap between the European Union (EU) and the citizens of the Member States. According to a common belief, this gap is the result of a deliberate decision made by the founding fathers and subsequent European officials to keep the integration dynamic distant from the people. Yet, if we look closely at their writings and actions that were initiated by the European Commission at an early stage in the integration process, we can only conclude that there is little evidence to support this common belief. On the contrary, it appears that the founding fathers were eager to inform the public on issues related to the communities and that they did not hesitate to support measures aimed at enhancing knowledge about Europe, its policies, and its institutions. It is essential to question these beliefs in order to improve our understanding of the democratic deficit in the EU and especially of the solutions proposed for remedying it. If we admit that the founding fathers never had the intention of keeping the people in ignorance and that some actions were rapidly taken to bring the EU closer to them then it becomes difficult to claim that a reduction of the democratic deficit will follow when decision‐makers simply imagine and adopt programmes aimed at bridging the gap. The question then becomes why have this socialisation and this ‘rapprochement’ not occurred.
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 | 0.018 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.040 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| 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".