Common Foreign And Security Policy Governance: Between Geopolitical Challenges And Trump’S Vision
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) was developed in Maastricht as the EU's second pillar of intergovernmental nuance, and was complemented by the Treaties of Amsterdam and Nice, and the Treaty of Lisbon enshrines the role of the High Representative and the European Council.Trump Administration in the USA has brought great challenges and new demands for the CFSP, especially on the line of security and defense. The EU will have to join China, India, Canada, Australia, Brazil and other countries in order to continue to focus on three key areas:trade, non-proliferation and climate change, but also on improving global governance. Cooperation within NATO remains a viable option, based on policies and investments in security and defense capabilities, as well as with the neighboring countries. The EU will remain a defender of liberal values and democracy and the preservation of the existing international order.
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 | 0.012 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.044 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".