The European security and defence identity debate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The theoretical foundations of the thesis are based on international regime theory, in particular the concept of security regimes. The thesis divides the debates between Europeanists and Atlanticists and places both within the theoretical constructs of international regime theory. Europeanists believe that the European Union must eventually develop and implement its own defence capabilities outside of NATO. The Europeanist argument relies on a more functionalist approach to international regimes, whereby integration in one area will necessarily spillover into the security realm. Atlanticists, on the other hand, believe that NATO must remain as the key institution to supply the public good of defence for Europe. The Atlanticist argument rely on the premise of hegemonic stability and the need to have a hegemon, the United States, remain as the leader within the regime in order to sustain the regime. (Abstract shortened by UMI.)
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".