Bibliographic record
Abstract
Europa er i endring, og vi ser nå en gryende diskusjon om Norges forhold til EU. Dette er nødvendig ettersom Norges avtaler med EU ble fremforhandlet i en tid da verden så veldig annerledes ut. Den sittende regjeringen besluttet våren 2022 å sette sammen et utvalg for å vurdere erfaringene med EØS-avtalen de siste ti årene eller siden sist gang en omfattende utredning av Norges avtaler med EU ble foretatt i 2012 (NOU 2012: 2). I tillegg til å få i oppdrag å vurdere norske erfaringer med EØS-avtalen, har utvalget blitt bedt om å vurdere erfaringene Storbritannia (siden brexit), Sveits og Canada har fra sitt avtalebaserte samarbeid med EU. Det regjeringen derimot ikke har bedt utvalget om, er å gjøre en tilsvarende vurdering av hva et eventuelt norsk medlemskap i EU ville betydd for ulike sektorer. Selv om det ikke er vanskelig å finne en politisk forklaring på hvorfor medlemskapsalternativet ble utelatt i regjeringens mandat til utvalget, så finnes det ingen god faglig begrunnelse for det ettersom medlemskap er et reelt alternativ. Med denne fokusspalten ønsker vi derfor å supplere utvalgets rapport, som er planlagt publisert våren 2024, med en analyse av medlemskapsalternativet. Abstract in English:Norway and the EU: The Significance of MembershipEurope is changing and we are now seeing an emerging discussion about Norway’s relationship with the EU. This is necessary, since Norway’s agreements with the EU were negotiated at a time when the world looked very different. The current government decided in the spring of 2022 to put together a committee to assess experience with the EEA agreement over the past ten years (the last time a comprehensive investigation/evaluation of Norway’s agreements with the EU was conducted was in 2012). In addition to being tasked with assessing Norway’s experience with the EEA agreement, the committee was asked to assess the experiences of Great Britain (since Brexit), Switzerland and Canada in regards to their agreements with the EU. The government did not asked the committee, however, to carry out a corresponding assessment of what a possible Norwegian EU membership would mean for different sectors. Although it is not difficult to find a political explanation for why the membership option was not included in the mandate the government granted the committee, there are no good research-based justifications for this, as membership is indeed an option. With this special issue, we therefore wish to supplement the committee’s report, which is scheduled to be published in the spring 2024, with an analysis of the membership option.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.038 | 0.006 |
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".