Looking back and looking forward: 20 years of European Political Science serving the political science community in Europe and beyond
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Anniversaries are milestone events. They invite those involved to celebrate their achievements, but also reflect about the past, present and future. The 20th anniversary of European Political Science (EPS) is such a landmark. It marks a success story; the development from a news style magazine to a major political science journal. Over the past 20 years, EPS has developed into an outlet in which political scientists exchange about their profession, best practices in teaching and learning, as well as shared authoritative research. We have shaped many professional discussions such as debates about gender equality or the relevancy of political science and have become an authoritative voice in the deliberations of innovative teaching techniques such as simulations or role plays. And in our research section, we have covered the big events in Europe and beyond such as the War in Iraq, Brexit and the European Refugee Crisis. We can be proud of what we have achieved in the past 20 years. However, we are not without challenges, which include among others practicing greater diversity in terms of authorship and the types of articles we publish. This anniversary issue is a first step in this direction. By discussing the political science profession in Europe and beyond, it includes a balance of authors from different parts of Europe and the world, a gender balance in contributors and, above all, it raises some of the largest challenges we, as a discipline, will have to tackle in the next 20 years. These include academic freedom, inequalities in the profession and the relevancy of political science as a discipline.
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 | 0.034 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.024 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.003 |
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".