The European Union's evolving role in response to U.S. waning hegemony
Bibliographic record
Abstract
How do America's democratic allies perceive and respond to a relative decline in US power and influence and the simultaneous rise of China? Using the case-studies of Europe, the UK, Australia, Canada, Japan and South East Asian countries, this book offers a broad assessment of the perceptions of threat and the strategies used by these allies to cope with the relative decline of America's hegemonic power, the rise of China and the transforming world order. In answering these central questions, contributors focus on two complementary analytical approaches. The first examines the perceptions of systemic changes by America's allies: how are US allies framing this issue and what kind of political discourse is emerging with regards to it? The second approach focuses on the concrete foreign policy and defence strategies put forward by these allies. The book explores the extent to which US allies are willing to support US hegemony and considers the democratic allies' understanding of the international structure, their relations to the United States, and their own aspirations in this changing world order. This book will be of interest to general readers as well as scholars and students of US foreign policy, foreign policy analysis and International Relations.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".