Together apart: representations of the European Union in Anglosphere’s foreign policy discourse 2021–2024
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article analyses and interprets the ways in which the European Union (EU) was discursively represented within the official elite foreign policy discourse of five Anglosphere countries – the United Kingdom, United States, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada – between 2021 and 2024. In order to do so, it draws on critical constructivism, works with the corpus of the countries’ official pronouncements on the EU in the 2021–2024 period and adopts the general orientation of the discourse historical approach to critical discourse studies. It pays particular attention to the role of blame in the representation practices, exploring how blame functions to either intensify adversarial portrayals or, conversely, is absent in ways that allow for more neutral or cooperative representations. The findings show that the coexistence of blame-based and non-blame-based articulations of the EU within the Anglosphere policy foreign discourse reflects a complex web of ambivalent and sometimes contradictory national positions that challenges the advancement of Anglosphere’s cohesive relations 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 | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".