MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2062238131 · doi:10.5539/res.v4n3p100

Soft Power or Neo-colonialist Power? - African Perceptions of the EU

2012· article· en· W2062238131 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Siegmar Schmidt

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of European Studies · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Development and Aid
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsForeign policySoft powerDemocracy promotionIdentity (music)Power (physics)European unionPromotion (chess)PerceptionPolitical sciencePerspective (graphical)Political economyInternational relationsDemocracySociologyInternational tradeEconomicsPoliticsDemocratizationLawPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article analyses African perceptions of the EU’s policy toward Africa from a constructivist research perspective. From this perspective perceptions are important because they contribute to a foreign policy identity. The interaction of self-ascribed roles with external perceptions and expectations creates a foreign policy identity which manifests in foreign policy roles such as “civilian power”. The main questions are: How do African elites and Africans at large perceive the European Union (EU)? What is the image of the EU in Africa? The empirical basis is characterised by deficits. The article gives a brief overview on historical legacies and the current interregional relations. In the following it assesses African perceptions of three key areas on the EU Africa policy: The EU’s promotion of democracy and human rights, the EU’s role in trade relations and the EU’s policy in the field of peace and security. The following conclusion can be taken from the investigation: The EU is neither fully viewed as a soft-power nor as a neo-colonialist power. The EU’s self-ascribed role is not fully accepted in Sub-Saharan Africa.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.916
Threshold uncertainty score0.461

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.317 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations11
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReview of European StudiesSame topicInternational Development and AidFrench-language works237,207