MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2089987509 · doi:10.1080/08865655.2012.751710

Cross-border Cooperation, Regional Disparities and Integration of Markets in the EU

2012· article· en· W2089987509 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Rolf Bergs

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Borderlands Studies · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCross-Border Cooperation and Integration
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeneral partnershipEuropean unionEconomic integrationEuropean commissionRegional integrationCommissionEconomic geographyInternational tradePolitical scienceEconomic and monetary unionRegional scienceEconomicsGeographyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper is a revised empirical chapter of the ex-post evaluation of INTERREG III which was carried out on behalf of the European Commission during 2008 to 2010. One of the tasks was to assess the impact of INTERREG III on harmonious regional development and integration throughout Europe. This paper is focused on INTERREG-Strand A (cross-border cooperation). The empirical analysis, based on a factor with subsequent regression analysis, suggests that the history of cooperation matters predominantly for European Union cross-border economic integration, while the strength of cooperation in terms of strategic partnership or the common understanding of needs for cross-border regional development seems not to matter. Apart from history, the major determinants for cross-border economic integration and cross-border regional disparities are forces outside INTERREG, namely intra-industry trade of the national economies, Economic and Monetary Union and Schengen.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0000.006
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.435
Teacher spread0.388 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations20
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Borderlands StudiesSame topicCross-Border Cooperation and IntegrationFrench-language works237,207