Parliaments in EU Enlargement: Strengthening Capacities and the Evolving Methodology, Brussels/Luxembourg, Publications Office of the European Union. 2025.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Parliaments in EU Enlargement: Strengthening Capacities and the Evolving Methodology, Brussels/Luxembourg, Publications Office of the European Union. 2025. ISBN 978-92-848-2465-6. COI: 20.500.12592/ipihaeg. DOI:https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2861/0736619 https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2861/8484865, This study examines the role of parliaments in EU enlargement, focusing on the evolving accession methodology and its emphasis on fundamental principles. It analyzes the European Commission's criteria for 'functioning democratic institutions' in candidate countries and assesses the effectiveness of support measures from EU institutions, Member States, and international organizations. Through research, mapping, and interviews, the study evaluates democracy support initiatives for parliaments in ten enlargement countries, highlighting best practices and challenges. It stresses the need for more coherent action to combat democratic backsliding, emphasizing the crucial role of the European Parliament and its Democracy Support and Election Coordination Group (DEG).
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 | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.042 | 0.015 |
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".