Bibliographic record
Abstract
In December 2003, during the Italian presidency, the intergovernmental conference (IGC) on the constitutional treaty for the enlarged European Union (EU) failed. One of the countries leading the impasse in the negotiations was Poland. Together with the Spanish representatives, the Polish delegation stubbornly refused to come to a compromise on the new weighting of votes in the Council, as proposed by the Convention. In doing so, the Poles seemed to confirm the expectations about them in many member states, where fears of an unmanageable enlarged EU were increasingly voiced. 1 Before they officially entered the EU, some people believed that the candidate countries from Central Europe (CEC) would indeed behave as anti-federalists after accession. With a sizeable number of Eurosceptical parties in parliament, reflecting increasing Euroscepticism among the population, it was expected that many of them, especially Poland, would defend their sovereignty to a maximum degree and be reluctant to hand over more power to the supranational level. Surprisingly enough, half a year later, in July 2004, two months after the official entry of this alleged Eurosceptical country, an agreement was reached rather smoothly on the same controversial issue. These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.003 |
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".