Bibliographic record
Abstract
The EU enlargement policy was labelled in 2003—shortly before the ‘big bang’ enlargement of 2004—the most successful EU external relations policy. Due to that success, the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) has, since 2003, copied certain characteristics of the policy and instruments. However, after the 2004 accession of twelve new Member States and the subsequent accession of Romania and Bulgaria in 2007 and finally of Croatia in 2013, a general enlargement fatigue can be diagnosed among the existing EU Member States. EU Member States have become wary of further accession in times of recurring crises of the European Union project and in light of the challenge of post-accession integration of new Member States, especially of Bulgaria and Romania, as an ongoing project. At the same time they are not willing to abandon such an effective tool for influencing and aligning third countries’ policies to EU law and for stimulating reforms in national administrative and legal orders of neighbouring countries in anticipation of accession. Montenegro, Serbia, and Turkey have started accession negotiations, Albania and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia secured a recognized candidate status, while Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo are being viewed as potential candidates. While the enlargement policy is still in
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 | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.471 | 0.206 |
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".