Diverging views of EU-Russian borders: points of congruence and difference in EU and Russian analyses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article analyzes and compares EU and Russian approaches to the study of cross-border cooperation (CBC) after the Cold War, after examining the historical background and main theoretical approaches that have framed this literature. While EU literature has mirrored EU practice by drawing attention to more diverse and complex modes of cooperation, Russian analyses echo the official emphasis on mutual economic interactions with EU countries at the border areas. Western analyses of CBC are implicitly influenced by the works on ‘new regionalism’ and transnationalism. As a whole, the European scholars underline that cross-border projects have had limited impact; they point to various obstacles to cross-border economic development, resulting in only a limited effect on existing structural factors. In turn, Russian scholars acknowledge the minor interest of the Russian government in cross-border cooperation with the EU, stressing Russia’s priority to implement an independent foreign policy in Europe aimed at restoration of its own economic power. Operating from a constructivist theoretical framework, the authors conclude that the ideational apparatus used to analyze border cooperation is strongly conditioned by the political context in which scholars operate as well as by the larger geopolitical situation.
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 | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".