The importance of EU support program to the Western Balkans: The example of the Republic of Serbia
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In its overall policy the European Union is fully focused on the regional cooperation program and development of the Western Balkans, particularly regarding the EU enlargement policy. These countries have access to EU capacities through numerous financial support programs and technical assistance to enable the economic development and prosperity of the countries, their political stability and security. The aim of the paper is to show how these support programs to the institutions and organizations contribute to the development of the Republic of Serbia in the regional development and cooperation in the Western Balkans. To resolve the issues of mutual concern regarding unfavorable economic situation in most countries of the Western Balkans, financial support is vital what is exactly the purpose and aim of the EU support programs. Through the regional support programs, as well as the incentives to the countries to improve their regional cooperation, EU simplifies the access to loans. It is conducted by uniting and coordinating different sources of funding and technical assistance. Moreover, it provides the support to the administration and implementation of the CBC program. In this way the institutional and organizational capacities, regional and social infrastructure, as well as regional initiatives between the countries of the Western Balkans are improved.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it