The Power of Inscription: Beyond Social Construction and Deconstruction in European Integration Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article advances a heterodox understanding of `construction' as a way of theorising European integration. The first section sets out this version of construction, which is derived from the work of Bruno Latour and which emphasises the techne of inscription. This new view of construction is contrasted with the typical understandings of construction and deconstruction within European Union studies. The article then demonstrates the value of a focus on inscription in terms of a case study: the construction of Justice and Home Affairs as a sp h ere of EU competence. A concern with inscription does not amount to anything like a new theory of European integration. Instead, it gestures towards a microsocial engagement with some of the materials of integration. This undertaking does not reveal the broad dynamics or processes of European integration, and it certainly does not explain policy outcomes. Instead, it suggests a series of local and situated accounts concerning some of the myriad ways in which Europe is composed as a knowable space of rule, in which the actions of diverse agents might be coordinated in such a way as to promote Europe.
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 | 0.016 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.107 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.023 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".