Addressing threats: European foreign policy toward the Middle East since the European Security Strategy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper looks at the qualitative change in the foreign policy discourse by the European Union towards the Middle East, as well as the EU’s overall degree of consistency between words and deeds. By looking at European Council Conclusions as well as General Affairs Council conclusions, it will be argued that on a discursive level the Union has taken stock of the emergence of new threats to its security, and has started shifting its attention from state failure and regional conflicts to the threats posed by terrorism and non-conventional proliferation. Secondly, by differentiating among three kinds of coherence, it will be shown that the main source of incoherence in the Union external action in the Middle East is not to be found in its institutional or horizontal dimensions, but in its vertical level, that is between the Union and member states. Examples will be provided in order to substantiate an overall claim: the EU security discourse might have changed; its policies however remain driven by the difficult balancing exercise between Brussels and national capitals. Full text available at: https://doi.org/10.22215/rera.v3i2.184
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 | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".