Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is on ongoing debate on how European labour law should best be described and understood. According to one view national and EU labour law should not be regarded as two separate legal systems. Instead this view stresses the symbiosis of national labour law systems and EC labour law. This view also emphasis a sociological approach to EC labour law: an approach which looks beyond the vertical interaction between Member States and EC institutions. The role of different actors, processes and outcomes at both European and national are equally important for understanding how labour law is shaped. The story of the Posting of Workers Directive (96/71/EC), the Laval, Rüffert and Commission vs. Luxemburg-cases and their aftermath lends itself perfectly for such a multi-level governance approach. The aim of this article is to analyse the legal responses on the case law of the EU-Court, both at European level and at national level in the Nordic Countries.
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 | 0.009 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".