Contesting or Affirming ‘Europe’? European Enlargement, Aspirations for ‘Europeanness’ and New Identities in the Margins of Europe
Bibliographic record
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".