European Identity and the Challenges of Turkish Accession to the European Union
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2005, Turkey entered into negotiations for membership with the European Union. Turkey has been an important strategic ally to the European Union in the Middle East, explaining the mutual desire for closer ties between the two. While these negotiations showed promise early on, it has become increasingly apparent that Turkish accession to the European Union will not come easily, if at all. Officially, the European Union cites Turkey’s shortcomings on issues such as human rights as the reason for the stall in negotiations. However, upon closer inspection, it is evident that there is more at play, particularly as the European Union has been inconsistent in their approach to addressing human rights violations. Member states such as Poland and Hungary, which have recent human rights violations, have not faced the same kind of condemnation that Turkey has from the leaders of the European Union. The reality is that the European Union is largely united by its shared Europeanness and Christianity. As a result, due to questions over Turkey’s Europeanness and its large Muslim majority, the European Union is apprehensive to afford it full membership. It can be said that the European Union has maintained that Turkish accession is still possible in order to continue reaping the strategic benefits from close relations with Turkey.
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 | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| 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".