Policy-making and the New Modes of Governance in the European Neighborhood Policy. Jean Monnet/Robert Schuman Paper Series Vol 8, No. 8, May 2008
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since 2002, the EU has been developing the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) to cope with the challenges eventually resulting from the new post-enlargement political order in Europe. The EU is keen on maintaining its borders safe and secure from trans-national risks such as illegal migration, environmental degradation and economic crisis. In order to meet these objectives, the EU promotes democratic and economic reforms in the countries located along its Eastern and Southern borders to foster political stability and security. It does so by including third state actors into a process of governance entailing various modes such as coordination, competition, negotiation and compliance. Towards the backdrop of an analysis of ENP policy-making, the paper demonstrates that the governance approach is well-equipped to grasp the internal dynamic of the European Neighbourhood Policy and identifies coordination and competition as the dominant –a albeit not exclusive – modes of governance.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".