Introduction: Growing Apart? America and Europe in the Twenty-First Century
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As the Cold War drew to a close, most students of international politics had come to believe that the relationship between the United States and Europe was much more than an alliance of interest. The “West” was also a set of ideas: liberal democracy, human rights, and welfare state capitalism were more than just temporary expedients. Taken together, they were the key institutional expressions of the shared values of the West. It is true that the West has never been a unified and homogeneous entity. Still, most of us believed that there was a common project and, whatever our differences, what held us together was far more important than what divided us. Indeed, many of us believed that the countries of the industrialized West were also becoming more alike in their basic values, their models of political economy, and their modes of foreign policy. Of course, it was never politically correct to assert this, and many of us offered ritual critiques of “the end of history” thesis. Yet it was sometimes difficult to see things otherwise. The louder the protests against the assertion of the final triumph of liberalism, the more inevitable it all seemed. It was hard to deny that Western democratic liberalism won out because this system was simply better than all the alternatives. Consequently, the American–European alliance would dominate the world for as long as any reasonable analyst could foresee. The attacks of September 11, 2001, drove home this consensus.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".