Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the Laval case (C-341/05) the Court of Justice of the European Communities made clear that the right to collective action is a general principle of Community law, but the actions taken by the Swedish trade unions were nevertheless disapproved. A provider of services from another EU country could not be required to set aside time and effort in order to conclude a collective agreement in another host state. It amounted to a restriction of the fundamental freedom to provide service as laid down in Article 49 of the Treaty. The Court found that the Directive is a maximum directive in the light of the core provisions found in Article 3 of the Directive. The Court disapproved of the national Swedish provisions aimed at combating social dumping. The Court has partly changed a national labor market model like the Swedish one. The Court adopted a libertarian approach in both the interpretation of Article 49 and the Directive 96/71 on posting of workers in the framework of provision of services. The Court did not attach importance to the diversity principle in Article 136 of the Treaty; neither did it pay full attention to other international instruments stipulating a right to take collective action. Rights and obligations from such public international law obligations according to Article 307 of the Treaty were not at all discussed by the Court.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".