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 EU is currently reviewing its interests in the High North and has recently started developing an Arctic policy. This article aims at explaining this foreign policy expansion by applying a theoretical framework consisting of three levels: (1) the internal level – viewing EU foreign policy (EFP) as the product of an “organization;” (2) the state level – in specifically accounting for the role played by external actors, primarily states; and (3) the systemic level – viewing the EU and its foreign policy as dependent on structural conditions within the global system. Through interviews, document studies, as well as existing scholarly research, the article identifies impact from all three analytical levels, including how the supranational and member-state level combined has been decisive in shaping the final policy outcome. The research identifies the crucial role played by other Arctic states, particularly Canada and Norway. Finally, on the systemic level, key conditions such as global warming and economic forces are recognized as relevant explanatory factors behind the development of the EU’s Arctic policy.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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