The Laval and Viking cases : freedom of services and establishment v. industrial conflict in the European Economic Area and Russia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Notes on Contributors. Foreword. National Reports: Austria: National Report on Possible Effects on Austrian Labour Law Due to the Latest Judgements of the European Court of Justice on Fundamental Freedoms and Collective Actions K. Grillberger, E. Felten. Belgium: Laval and Viking R. Blanpain. Influence of Laval and Viking upon Belgian Individual and Collective Labour Law P. Humblet. Denmark: The Viking Line and Laval Cases Seen from a Danish Perspective R. Nielsen. Estonia: Freedom of Services and Establishment and Industrial Conflict: Impact of the ECJ Cases on Estonian Labour Law M. Muda. Finland: ECJ and the Challenge of Understanding Collective Bargaining N. Bruun. Germany: Freedom of Establishment versus Right to Collective Action: Developments in the Shadow of the Court M. Schlachter. Greece: The Impact of the ECJ Judgements Viking and Laval on Domestic Labour Rights: 'Bolkenstein' by the Back Door N. Aliprantis, G. Katrougalos. Hungary: Freedom of Services, Establishment and Industrial Conflicts: Country Report: Hungary G. Kiss, E. Kajtar. Italy: Viking and Laval: Impacts on the Right to Strike and Collective Autonomy in the Italian Legal System G. Orlandini. Lithuania: Strikes as ultima ratio Method of Social Conflicts Resolution: Lithuanian Case D. Petrylaite. Norway: Market Freedoms, Labour Market Regulation and Trade Union Rights: Worlds Apart in EU Law? S. Evju. Poland: The Right of Trade Unions to Collective Action versus the Right to Freely Carry Out Economic Activity and the Right to Free Movement of Services within the European Union A.M. AiwiA'tkowski. Russia: Laval and Viking Cases: A View from Russia N. Lyutov. United Kingdom: British Labour Law after Laval and Viking E. Szyszczak. The Implications of Viking and Laval for UK Labour Law T. Novitz. Annex: Case C-341/05. Case C-438/05.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".