Between Scylla and Charybdis: navigating EU strategic autonomy amid US-China trade competition
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Amid growing Sino-American competition, we would expect the US and China to deploy ‘binding’ and ‘wedging’ strategies to encourage Europe to align with it against the other. As this article shows, however, in the realm of trade, their behaviour has been less strategic – and more haphazard, volatile and contradictory – than theories of great power competition would predict. Driven primarily by domestic political considerations, the US and China’s actions on trade have alienated, antagonized and repelled Europe rather than encouraging it to align with either of them. Instead, external threats from the US and China have served to strengthen EU unity and resolve to maintain its strategic autonomy. Navigating threats from both sides, the EU has charted its own course, seeking to defend the rules-based multilateral trading system, while also developing new tools to better defend its interests, including ones specifically designed to promote internal binding and counter external wedging.
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.
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 it