Intergenerational Solidarity: Setting the parameters for Tomorrow's Society in Europe
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Policies made by national and EU bodies almost always reflect the perspectives of politicians and advisers, rather than those of the young, which are often markedly different. Every EU institution needs to try harder to capture the hearts and minds of the young in order to arrest their growing alienation from politics. One of the most striking features of the difference in attitudes between the older and the younger in much of Europe is in their attitude to religion — and arguably even more importantly — to sensitive social issues. On these, younger citizens tend to be very much more liberal than their elders. Opinion polls in the UK show clearly that less than a quarter of young people regard themselves as religious. Only one in 14 of younger people think that the Catholic Church should “protect the sanctity of human life by campaigning, for example against abortion and euthanasia”. And a much higher proportion of the young than the old want contraception to be widely available, are liberal on the question of homosexuality and are pro-choice over abortion. Indeed only about 10 % of Catholics support their Church's doctrine on contraception, homosexuality and abortion. And only 4 % of Catholics under 40 years old think that there should
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 | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".