Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article analyses the Treaty of Lisbon, a Treaty whose fate hangs in the balance following the Irish ‘no’ in June 2008. It is structured as follows. First, the processes leading to the adoption and ratification of the Treaty are examined. Second, the structure of the Treaty and the institutional framework are explained, together with changes to the social provisions. Third, the possible impact which the Treaty, if ratified, would have on labour law is discussed. Particular attention is devoted to the changes in the values, aims and objectives of the Union and to the European Union's proposed accession to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. It is argued that these changes may influence the internal market case law of the Court of Justice, which, as the Viking, Laval and Rüffert cases demonstrate, represents a significant threat to national labour laws and practices.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.006 |
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".