Has European sectoral social dialogue improved since the establishment of SSDCs in 1998?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article looks at the way in which European sectoral social dialogue has developed over the past 20 years. It tries to determine whether the establishment of Sectoral Social Dialogue Committees in 1998 (SSDCs; currently 40) has affected the nature and/or quantity of texts adopted by these bodies. To this end, two periods are considered: 1990—1997 and 1998—2009. A first finding is that European sectoral social dialogue has burgeoned since the mid-1990s. The establishment of SSDCs therefore forms part of this expansion. Our main finding is that, whereas previously sectoral social dialogue was primarily geared towards ‘joint lobbying’ documents addressed to the European institutions, it now appears to be generating more documents that reflect ‘reciprocal commitments’. Yet this trend is really only perceptible from 2003 onwards, five years after the first SSDCs were established. The increased number of binding joint texts adopted can be explained by the Commission having undertaken more consultation (under Treaty Article 154) which opened a window of opportunity for the social partners to sign ‘agreements’.
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 | 0.009 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".