Les pays scandinaves et lâidentité européenne
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Résumé\nLe Danemark, la Norvège et la Suède sont négligés dans l’étude de l’identité européenne et de la multiplicité identitaire. Cette région est marquée par une complexité identitaire en raison de la présence d’identités locale, régionale, nationale et de deux identités supranationales, la Scandinave et l’Européenne. Cette complexité soulève certaines questions. Les identités nationale et supranationale sont-elles compatibles et complémentaires? Quelle est l’intensité de ces identités? Quelle est la relation entre les identités scandinave et européenne? Pour répondre à ces questions, nous effectuons une recension de la littérature qui est complétée d’une analyse de divers sondages. Aussi, deux typologies tirées de la littérature sont utilisées pour répondre aux questions. En comparant les données obtenues pour chaque pays, nous observons que les écrits tendent à opposer et à polariser les identités en Scandinavie, alors que les données statistiques de sondages les nuancent et montrent qu’elles sont compatibles. Les pays scandinaves ont une identité nationale forte, mais aussi une identité européenne en développement.\nAbstract\nDenmark, Norway and Sweden have been neglected in the study of European identity and multiple identities. With the presence of local, regional, national and two supranational identities, the Scandinavian and European identities, this region is characterized by a complex set of identities that need to be studied. A number of questions come up regarding this situation. Are national and supranational identities compatible and complementary? What is the intensity or strength of these identities? What is the relationship between the Scandinavian and European identities? To answer these questions, we proceed by doing a review of the literature, followed by a survey analysis. We also use two typologies drawn from works on identity to answer these questions. By comparing data for each country, we were able to observe that the literature tends to oppose identities and view them as mutually exclusive, whereas surveys moderate these conclusions and show that national and supranational identities are complementary. National identities are strong in Scandinavia, but European identity progressing.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 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".