Les partis politiques et les élections européennes un an après : bilan et perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study covers the one-year period since the first election of the European Assembly by universal suffrage, the results of which were rather misleading. The authors attempt to elaborate a conceptual framework capable of analyzing empirically the programs and ideological stands of the parties in the Strasbourg Chamber as they have evolved since the election. As a point of reference, the analysis has recourse to three socio-political cleavages which were observable throughout late European history or tend to appear in the modem context of political life; these include the divisions between 1) "bourgeois" and working class parties; 2) europeanist versus nationalist parties, and 3) industralist (or productivist) as opposed to "ecological" party formations. A detailed examination of both the interventions of euro-deputies in Assembly debates, and data recorded in several interviews with some deputies during this first year of their mandate, reflects not only the existing constellations of power and party alliances within the Assembly that reaffirm themselves on specific issues, but also the potential coalitions which may arise due to the rapidly changing political scene. These new coalitions, which tend to form more easily among members of different parties who share common interests with regard to social and economic issues, may eventually serve to overcome the traditional ideological divisions among parties. In terms of the near future, it doesn't matter so much whether the Euro-right or the Euro-left will succeed in imposing its majority in the Assembly, but whether the European Parliament itself, as an institution, will be able to demonstrate that it can have an effective and more representative voice in the formulation of EEC policies.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".