Not playing the same game? European integration with regions in context: the Basque case
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The idea of a ‘Europe of the Regions’ was never realized to the extent imagined by scholars after the Maastricht Treaty. Why did a convergence of interests once imagined not occur? What processes unique to the context of a sub-state region could have affected their willingness to engage in these new institutions? This article utilizes a historical institutionalist approach using critical junctures to understand the Basque Country’s response to Maastricht and highlight the micro-level and temporal factors influencing their engagement with Maastricht’s new regionally-oriented institutions. It is hypothesized that the lack of engagement within the critical juncture of Maastricht resulted from a lack of productive conditions capable of influencing key actors within the region’s administration toward further supranational integration. While the actions of the EU indeed open the door to further integration, the most immediate causal mechanisms impacting regional engagement may not be the EU’s actions directly but rather the current dynamics present within the region. Key actors’ political goals and strategies, influenced by their changing perceptions of state-level institutions, can play a causal role in determining their understanding of and interactions with the EU
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".