Les relations transnationales et l’intégration européenne : Note pour un modèle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The hypothesis of European Systems distinct from that or those composed of States is not new. In order to utilize this hypothesis effectively cognizance must be taken, in addition to the multiplicity of actors, of the rivalry of their projects and their strategies. Such an approach to the European reality would contribute to the construction of a new and useful model provided that certain methodological procedures are respected. Research efforts with respect to integration must not be subordinated to the examination of relations of interdependence within the international System. Ostensively structured to renew the problematics of integration, a thesis of that nature is in fact akin to the older « realist » paradigm. Rather, one would hope to benefit from the findings of research respecting transnational relations and to incorporate them with the more institutional concerns of integration theory. This theoretical mix is expressed by a network model, which respects the specific, multiple and hierarchic combination that characterizes integrationist phenomena. The "European network" model possesses two registers. Globally, there is the operator or System of relations that transforms or "translates" relations among groups. At this level, the model makes it possible to effectively describe the makeup of political Europe. Locally, the network is a assemblage of structures or hierarchic and stable sets that assume the form of alliances or of groupings, conflicts or shared ventures. Two further concepts are necessary to activate the network model: those of the "position" and "strategy" of the actors. The former is founded on dynamic oppositions and involves categorization of "major" and "minor" actors whose relations are analyzed by a consideration of the network's structures of order. The concept of "strategy" seeks to give expression to the relationship between the organizational mode of a social group and its representation. By attempting a synthesis of the "Marxist" approach of integration and the study of "transgovernmental" relations, this concept could be applied to the European States.
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 | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.025 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".