A proportionate response to proportionality in the field of collective action
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The well-known decisions in Viking and Laval sent out a strong message that the economic and social dimensions of the European Union are capable of reconciliation. Yet, for better or worse, the outcome of the cases is seen by many to prioritise the economic interests over those of the social. In Commission v Germany (occupational pensions), Advocate General Trstenjak articulated a more genuine synthesis between the economic and social dimensions of the European Union, relying on the principle of proportionality. Her approach may well have been inspired by German law principles. Drawing on comparative sources, this article considers whether proportionality is the appropriate tool to balance the economic with the social in the context of collective action, and what form that proportionality review might take. This question has become more pressing with the proposed Monti II Regulation which aims to address some of the issues arising from the Viking judgment.
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 | 0.174 | 0.323 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.054 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.022 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.032 | 0.052 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".