For and against European Union expansion: Examining mixed opinion on enlargement and specific countries’ entries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
European Union (EU) residents hold complex attitudes toward expanding the union not completely captured in extant models of enlargement opinion. We develop two-by-two matrices of support and opposition toward (1) enlargement and (2) a potential member’s entry. Descriptive analyses of 2006 Eurobarometer data reveal that, across two-by-two matrices for enlargement and 13 potential members’ entries, EU-25 residents often support enlargement and a potential member’s entry or oppose both. Yet, what we call ‘qualified support of enlargement’ – support for enlargement but opposition to a potential member’s entry – varies by potential and current members. Synthesizing literature on similar attitudinal combinations with research on enlargement opinion, we develop hypotheses to account for the individual- and country-level variation in qualified support of enlargement, relative to supporting enlargement and a potential member’s entry or opposing both. According to our multilevel multinomial logit results, individual-level factors such as education, political awareness, and political ideology are generally related to qualified support of enlargement; economic distance between current and potential EU members is related to the levels of qualified support of enlargement in member countries. However, attitudes toward enlargement and the entries of countries, such as Turkey, Albania, and Iceland are exceptions to some patterns. Our findings highlight the multidimensionality of EU enlargement attitudes and suggest that literature on similar attitudinal combinations should incorporate group dynamics into their models.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".