Un balance de la jurisprudencia del Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea en materia de libertad de prestación de servicios y dumping social: An assessment of the court of justice of the european union jurisprudence about the freedom to provide services and social dumping
Bibliographic record
Abstract
espanolEI articulo que presento pretende hacer balance de la ultima jurisprudencia de una de las instituciones que mas influencia ha ejercido en el desarrollo de las materias sociales en el Derecho comunitario, pero tambien en los diversos Derechos Nacionales, cual es el Tribunal de Justicia de la UE. El analisis se centra en la jurisprudencia posterior a la saga Laval para comprobar si la eficacia vinculante otorgada a la Carta de Derechos Fundamentales ha supuesto una plataforma para el empuje de los derechos fundamentales por parte del Tribunal de Justicia, o por el contrario su proteccion ha continuado guiada por la idea de impulsar solo los derechos fundamentales que encajen con la estructura y objetivos de la Union. EnglishThe article presented aims analyses recent case law in social matters of Court of Justice of the EU. The analysis focuses on the case back to the Laval saga to check whether the special effect given to the Charter of Fundamental Rights has been a platform to push for fundamental rights by the Court. or else their protection has continued guided by the idea of promoting fundamental rights only fit the structure and objectives of the Union.
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 | 0.011 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".