Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Baltic states historically have overlapping geopolitical, economic and security interests. Relying on interviews with officials and document analysis, this article examines how Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania reasoned and behaved during the United Kingdom’s exit from the European Union (Brexit). Our research used a triple-core conceptual approach. First, based on Wivel and Thorhallsson’s conceptualization of small state strategies, we demonstrate that the three countries followed shelter seeking and hiding strategies as they sought to be neutral on issues not in their immediate interests for the sake of EU-27 unity, while simultaneously coordinating and aligning their positions with the other EU countries on the issues that were their primary concerns. Second, to explain Baltic choices, the article uses March and Olsen’s conceptualizations and concludes that they were bound by the logic of appropriateness – conformed with the EU approach, because of the commonality of problems with the other EU-27 member states and the European Commission’s style of leadership. Third, the research revealed that Brexit reinforced the Europeanization process, but there was little evidence of continued Europeanization in foreign policy after Brexit.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".