Improving Counter-Terrorism Policy Integration in the European Union: An Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper takes as its starting point recent terror attacks in the European Union and seeks to understand why the EU has suffered such a wave of high-profile, damaging attacks. Specifically, the paper explores counter-terrorism policy at the EU level and investigates why the integration of EU counter-terrorism policy is not higher among individual member states. Following an examination of previous terrorist incidents in the history of the EU and a literature review on EU-level counter-terrorism policy, the paper explores counter-terrorism institutions and mechanisms within the EU. A substantial analysis of the level of integration (or lack thereof) of these institutions and mechanisms is then undertaken, before by a concluding section that offers policy revisions to increase the implementation of policies by member states. The paper ultimately argues that implementation of counter-terrorism policy is lacking because individual member states are reluctant to cede their sovereignty over such an important policy area. The suggestion is also made that future EU counter-terrorism efforts should both focus on demonstrating how EU-level efforts will make member states safer, and, importantly, on creating mechanisms and institutions that will be of practical benefit to member states within their own domestic arenas.
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 | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".