Problems of European Integration in the Construction of EU Security Policy in the Context of Counter-Terrorism
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The main purpose of the article is to identify the main problems of European integration in building the EU security policy in the context of countering terrorism. The research methodology includes the methodology of graph and connection theory. Taking into account the opinion of experts, the main problems of European integration in building the EU security policy in the context of countering terrorism for the countries of Eastern Europe were identified. After the start of a full-scale invasion of the russian federation into the territory of Ukraine, a large number of countries that are not yet members of the European Union have stepped up and are striving to start integration processes to form a common European security system. In this regard, the purpose and content of this study are to more thoroughly define these processes and identify the main problems and issues. As a result of the study, the main problems of European integration in building the EU security policy in the context of countering terrorism were identified. The main model of the negative impact of the key problems of European integration in the construction of EU security policy in the context of countering terrorism was formed. The study has limitations and deals with taking into account the specifics of security policy exclusively in the countries of Eastern Europe. Further research is needed to determine the main problems of European integration in building the EU security policy in the context of countering terrorism for the countries of the world.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it