MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2032525189 · doi:10.1080/15705854.2011.596308

Puzzles of EU and NATO Accession of Post-Communist Countries

2011· article· en· W2032525189 on OpenAlexaff
Ivan Katchanovski

Bibliographic record

VenuePerspectives on European Politics and Society · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Development and Aid
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersDavis Center for Russian and Eurasian Studies, Harvard UniversityEuropean Commission
KeywordsAccessionResizingEuropean unionPolitical scienceNorth Atlantic TreatyTreatyCommunismDemocracyInternational tradeEconomyEconomic historyEconomicsPoliticsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Accessions of post-communist countries to the European Union (EU) and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) represent puzzles. While many such countries were granted a membership or a prospect of membership in these organisations, other European post-communist countries were not offered accession or the prospect of membership in the EU and NATO. The question is which factors account for such significant variation in accession to the EU and NATO among European post-communist countries. This article uses statistical analysis to determine which factors affect the accession of 25 European post-communist states to the EU and NATO in 1997–2010. The study shows that the level of democracy is positively associated with accession to NATO and the EU. Conflicts have a negative impact on the NATO enlargement, while the level of economic development has a positive effect on EU enlargement. Being a post-Soviet country has a negative effect on both NATO and EU accession.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.262 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePerspectives on European Politics and SocietySame topicInternational Development and AidFrench-language works237,207