Intellectual and Political ‘Europe’: Rupture or Continuity in Central Europe?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Trying to understand European integration and enlargement without reference to the concept of Europeanization is at best an incomplete process and at worst a fruitless one, especially as there is a growing literature on Europeanization since the 1990s. It is, broadly speaking, a term that is employed to label or describe a process of transformation, but many scholars have also used it as a tool to analyse different aspects of its social reality. Many draw our attention to the development of distinct structures and policy networks in the creation of authoritative European rules, pointing to institutional and policy analysis with a primary focus on domestic organizational structures, 1 while others speak of a process through which the European Union’s (EU) political, social and economic dynamics become part of a domestic discourse, identities, political structures and public policy, 2 without making any special reference to organizations as such. The latter understanding of Europeanization as a process encompassing cultural, political, psychological and socioeconomic domains seems more useful to explain Europeanization in Central Europe. 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.040 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 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".