Bibliographic record
Abstract
The 2004 enlargement of the European Union (EU) was heralded as ‘historic’ in terms of both its magnitude and geopolitical outreach, yielding the Central and East European countries’ ultimate ‘return to Europe’. Enlargement, however, resulted in more than the mere addition of ten new member states. It also pushed the EU much closer towards what is broadly conceived as a ‘new neighbourhood’ and into an area that the EU considers to be of paramount importance for security in Europe. The future of EU engagement in its neighbourhood will depend on two decisive factors. First, the EU is in an uncertain and difficult period of internal adjustment and consolidation after enlargement and the failed referenda in France and the Netherlands on the Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe. Second, the EU is about to absorb the impact that new members such as Poland and the Baltic states (Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania) will have on the EU’s foreign policy towards Eastern Europe (EU Eastern Policy 1 ). It is in this context that the EU is compelled to devise a strategy for the ‘new neighbourhood’ countries, in particular Russia, Belarus, Ukraine and Moldova.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".