Bibliographic record
Abstract
As of 2021, the European Union (EU) is now a foundational part of Europe’s defense architecture, with programmes such as PESCO now enabling the EU to organise civil-military responses to crise and coordinate the defense-planning cycles of 25 European countries. This article asks why EU member states have opted to use the EU to enable their capabilities and manage ongoing security crises? In answering this question, the article uses a pluralistic reading, utilising realist and liberal-intergovernmentalist frameworks to assess complementary hypotheses for this cooperation. The second part assesses the state of the international system, concluding its increasing insecurity has prompted a collective awareness that a more strategic response to collective security is necessary. The third part evaluates the role of the political and economic balance of bargaining power between EU member states, assessing Germany, France, and Poland as case studies. The paper concludes briefly on the implications of this cooperation and the need for pluralistic readings of EU defense cooperation.
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 | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.035 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.025 | 0.030 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".