Contesting or Affirming ‘Europe’? European Enlargement, Aspirations for ‘Europeanness’ and New Identities in the Margins of Europe
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Contrary to the expectations of the advocates of the EU project, an expanded and integrated Europe has so far not resulted in an inclusive cosmopolitanism of Europe in its actually existing complexity and heterogeneity. The enlargement of Europe in recent decades, instead of contesting Europe and expanding it to include all of actually existing Europe, has rather gone in the direction of confirming a monolithic conception of ‘Europe’, as culturally and politically defined by Western Europe, and one that properly belongs to a white bourgeois class able to function in a transnational, neoliberal space. This has led to a hyper-consciousness, new or heightened anxieties about ‘Europeanness’ based on distinctions between East and West, North and South. The paper focuses on the implications of, aspirations for, and insecure belonging in Europeanness in countries and regions in the margins of Europe. It argues that one of the most important outcomes of a heightened narcissism around European identity in the post-Cold War period has been an ongoing expansion, as well as reconfiguration, of exclusionary racist and culturalist logics across Europe. In the margins of Europe, these have been especially destructive, in terms of turning countries, regions and ethnic groups against one another as well as causing (racialized) class divisions and tensions. Keywords: European enlargementEuropeanessidentitiesEuropean belongingmargins of 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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it