MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4380083422 · doi:10.1080/07036337.2023.2220073

Defending Europe from below: pro-European activism in Germany and the UK and its contribution to the politicisation of Europe

2023· article· en· W4380083422 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Stijn van Kessel, Adam Fagan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of European Integration · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEuropean Union Policy and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEconomic and Social Research CouncilMcGill University
KeywordsBrexitGrassrootsPoliticsStatus quoPolitical economyPolitical scienceBalance (ability)Order (exchange)CLARITYStatus quo biasSociologyEuropean unionLawEconomicsInternational trade

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The ‘politicisation of Europe’ has mainly been discussed with reference to Eurosceptic parties in the ‘conventional’ political arena. From the perspective of the anti-Brexit campaign in the UK and Pulse of Europe in Germany, this article focuses on grassroots pro-European mobilisation to explore the potential of politicisation ‘from below’. The two movements stood out in their ability to provoke considerable levels of grassroot mobilisation. We argue, however, that both movements reached a strategic impasse that was marked by a lack of clarity about their desired future of Europe, and which hampered their ability to generate political change. Our comparative analysis of campaign materials and interview data reveals that these movements struggled to articulate a) diagnostic frames that struck the right balance between problematising the current political situation whilst supporting the established order, and b) prognostic frames that extended much beyond the defence of the status quo (ante).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0070.012
Scholarly communication0.0090.007
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.270 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of European IntegrationSame topicEuropean Union Policy and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207