Bridges over Convulsing Waters: the EU aspiring Eastern Partners' Role in the Regional Governance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The enlargement of the European Union (EU) to the East in 2004 and 2007 so as to include ten former communist countries and two small Mediterranean islands has triggered new questions on the nature of EU governance. We argue that the accession of Central and Eastern European countries (CEECs) to the EU has affected governance patterns in the EU and beyond. Undeniably, the most recent waves of enlargement have had feed-back effects on Europeanisation mechanisms (Grabbe 2006). Also, the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) conditionality attached to the Eastern partners will likely follow similar patterns. The EU is proud of its Enlargement policy, “one of the most successful EU policies”i, and is inclined to extend the enlargement mechanisms to future frameworks as the ENP. Through the example of Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia, and possibly Belarus, we argue that the ENP conditionality contributes to the EU's governance export in the same way the preparations for the fifth Eastern enlargement did. Furthermore, we advance the idea that complying with ENP conditionality may bring EU aspiring Eastern partners closer to accession.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".