The EU and the OSCE: Partners or Rivals in theEuropean Security Architecture?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since the Lisbon Treaty, the EU's role in foreign and security policy has grown considerably. The European External Action Service (EEAS) is justifiably considered to be the EU's fledgling "foreign ministry" and as such is tasked with managing European foreign and security policy on behalf of both the Union and the Member States. For its part, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) works to ensure its vision of "comprehensive security" is realized not merely in Europe, but in all areas from "Vancouver to Vladivostok." As such, it would appear on the surface that the two institutions are natural partners in promoting a unified vision for European security as part of the European Security Architecture. This paper examines the relationship between the EU and the OSCE, specifically looking at the EEAS and the OSCE's Office on Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) and High Commissioner on National Minorities and posits a far more complex picture. The EU and OSCE's relationship is fraught with tension, and actions taken by both institutions in the interests of "European" security ultimately may serve to weaken not merely each institution but also the realization of European security as a whole.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.024 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.002 |
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".