Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Schengen cooperation has been one of the most debated European issues since the migration flows into the EU increased in 2015. This survey article aims to give an overview of the scholarly literature on the Schengen Area which can help see the current issues in a broader theoretical and historical perspective. Often, researchers emphasize the difficulties the Schengen project experiences. They criticize that security is more important than human rights, EU citizens are more privileged than third country nationals, states use too much discretion in terms of interpreting the Schengen Acquis, etc. Regarding examined aspects of the Schengen cooperation, scholars focus predominantly on borders, security, agency, and the gap between legislation and practice. On the other hand, the issues of solidarity, resilience, and symbolism have been rather neglected so far. However, exactly these aspects could help clarify the current situation within the Schengen Area. To conclude, Schengen seems to be a resilient project, albeit full of ambiguities.
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 | 0.013 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.041 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.026 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".