Bibliographic record
Abstract
In March 2012, the Commission presented two legislative proposals – the Monti II-Regulation and the Enforcement Directive. The proposals constitute a response to the intense debate following the CJEU’s rulings in the Laval quartet. The first proposal, the Monti II-Regulation, aims at clarifying the relationship between the right to take collective action and the economic freedoms. Its vague formulation, however, puts its potential to change the state of law in question. The second proposal, the Enforcement Directive, aims at improving the enforcement of the Posting of Workers Directive. In doing so it shall equally ensure workers’ rights and enhance cross-border services by reducing employers’ administrative burdens. It is doubted, however, whether the methods chosen will be effective, especially that the Directive seems to overlook how closely the different enforcement mechanisms are linked to individual institutional arrangements in the Member States. The following paper analyses these two proposals, examines their potential implications and suggests alternative approaches.
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 | 0.026 | 0.087 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.023 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.131 | 0.072 |
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".