Globalization and the Future of Labour Law edited by John D. Craig and S. Michael Lynk [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006, xx + 498 pp, hardback, £65, ISBN 1 3052 185490 0]
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The essays collected in this volume were first presented at a conference held in October 2003 in the University of Western Ontario. They are related to the impact of globalisation on labour law. Nine of the contributors are practising or academic Canadian labour lawyers, three are from the US, three from the EU, one from Brazil and three are past or present ILO officials. Although there are some stimulating individual contributions, the book suffers from a common defect of collections of this kind. There is no clear or systematic focus. The arrangement is partly geographic (international, EU, the Americas), partly thematic (perspectives on globalisation, labour rights, and the impact on women and migrant workers), but the coverage is distinctly patchy. In this short review, I can focus on only two of the topics discussed. First, labour lawyers in the EU will benefit greatly by reading the three essays relating to the EU. (The editors rather irritatingly refer to the ‘European experiment’, as if it were a simple process of trial and error.) Manfred Weiss and Arturo Bronstein give somewhat different, but complementary, perspectives on EU enlargement, an issue which was more problematical in 2003 than it is now. Weiss sees excessive neo-liberalism in the Central and Eastern European states as a serious threat to the EU’s attempts to develop an integrated system of industrial relations based on collective bargaining and workers’ participation. He regards the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights as a critical challenge to that neo-liberalism. Bronstein, too, sees the Charter as embedding the values of the ‘European Social Model’ in the new Member States. Unfortunately, since they wrote, the Constitutional Treaty, entrenching the Charter, has been put on hold, the paradoxical result (in part) of the French and Dutch voters’ fears that their social achievements would be undermined by the Treaty!
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.005 |
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".