Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many key ideas in the Lisbon strategy can be traced back to the Delors Commission's 1993 White Paper on Growth, Competitiveness and Employment, arguably the EU's first major effort to confront the economic and social realities of globalisation. At the time the White Paper failed to achieve the results it sought. However, the core of the White Paper's labour market issues were taken up by the Amsterdam Treaty which initiated the European Employment Strategy and its innovative methodology, the open method of coordination (OMC). The Lisbon strategy, which followed soon thereafter, broadened this approach into a new mission to enhance the competitiveness of the EU which used the OMC extensively. However, EU Member States, zealous of their prerogatives in economic, labour market and social policies, were unwilling to grant the EU level significant roles for transnational coordination and implementation in these areas. The results have not matched the outpouring of support for Lisbon from progressive intellectuals and centre-left politicians. In the critical policy areas that the 1993 White Paper, the EES and the Lisbon strategy have addressed, contradictions between intergovernmentalism and the need for European coordination have led to suboptimal results.
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 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 | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".