Penser la citoyenneté européenne. Du Livre blanc sur la gouvernance au projet de Traité constitutionnel
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Résumé. Dans les discours politiques comme dans la littérature universitaire sur la construction européenne, la dernière décennie du 20ème siècle a été celle de la citoyenneté. Toutefois, la prolifération des théories autour de la citoyenneté européenne s'est brusquement arrêtée en 2001. Ce silence chez les théoriciens européanistes doit-il laisser conclure à une absence de développements en matière de citoyenneté européenne ces dernières années? Dans cet article, nous démontrons que la citoyenneté européenne doit être examinée à la lumière des développements politiques dont l'Union a fait l'objet ces dernières années. La comparaison du Livre Blanc sur la gouvernance européenne (2001) et du projet de Traité constitutionnel (2004) montre une certaine tension dans le discours institutionnel contemporain sur la citoyenneté européenne. L'article propose une nouvelle grille d'analyse pour appréhender cette tension et penser la citoyenneté européenne aujourd'hui; ce nouveau prisme est fondé sur la distinction entre “ citoyenneté de gouvernement ” et “ citoyenneté de gouvernance ”. Abstract. In political discourse as well as scholarly research on the European Union, the last decade of the 20th century was the decade of citizenship. But, despite numerous unresolved questions, there has been a virtual silence on the matter since 2001. Does this mean that there have been no major developments in European citizenship over the past few years? The answer is clearly negative. Via a comparison of the White Paper on European Governance (2001) and the draft Constitution (2004), this article documents a certain tension in the institutional discourse about European citizenship. It proposes a new theoretical model to grasp this tension and to understand European citizenship as it is conceived nowadays. This analytic prism is based on the distinction between “government citizenship” and “governance citizenship.”
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.001 |
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".