Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: Although EU equality law was initially designed to constrain public authorities in the context of the creation of a new legal order, it has progressively gained a second prominent function as a policy regulating inter-personal relationships. This article critically retraces the process through which EU equality law has evolved into a tool intended to impact on a vast array of societal practices - thus performing a transformative function. This process results from a complex interplay between the EU's political institutions and the judiciary, and is also marked by the strong involvement of the EU's Court of Justice. As a consequence, the transformative function of EU equality law has not been fully processed by EU political institutions. In this article it is argued that several of the dilemmas and tensions surrounding the parameters of EU equality law today may be related to the lack of a clear conceptual distinction between its public and private functions. This is illustrated for example in the Laval case, with the difficulty for trade unions to use the public law derogations to the prohibition of nationality discrimination, and through the debate on the need to modernize remedies for the enforcement of EU equality law. Résumé: Bien que le principe d'égalité en droit européen fût initialement conçu pour freiner les autorités publiques dans le contexte de la création d'un nouvel ordre juridique, il a progressivement acquis une seconde fonction importante en tant que système de régulation des relations inter-personnelles. Cet article retrace de manière critique le processus à travers lequel l'égalité en droit européen a évolué vers un instrument servant à exercer une influence sur un vaste domaine de pratiques sociétales - et ainsi, réalisant une fonction de transformation. Ce processus résulte d'interférences complexes entre les institutions politiques de l'UE et les instances judiciaires, et est aussi marqué par une grande participation de la Cour de Justice de l'UE. Par conséquent, la fonction transformative du principe d'égalité en droit européen n'a pas été tout à fait réalisée par les institutions politiques de l'UE. Il est démontré dans cet article que plusieurs des dilemmes et tensions entourant actuellement les paramètres du droit européen à l'égalité pourraient avoir un rapport avec le manque de distinction conceptuelle claire entre ses fonctions publiques et privées. Ceci est illustré par exemple dans l'affaire Laval , avec la difficulté pour les syndicats d'utiliser les dérogations de droit public pour l'interdiction de discrimination basée sur la nationalité, et à travers le débat sur le besoin de moderniser les remèdes pour permettre la mise en oeuvre du principe d'égalité en droit européen.
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 | 0.028 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.057 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".