Adjusting the Danish industrial relations system after <i>Laval</i> : recalibration rather than erosion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adjusting the Danish IR-system after Laval: Re-calibration rather than erosion<br/>Following some significant rulings that later became known as the Laval-quartet from the European Court of Justice (ECJ) many analyses have been concerned with the future implications for the highly regulated Nordic labour market (for detailed descriptions of the Laval case and the ’Laval-quartet’ see Ahlberg et al., 2006; Bücker and Warneck, 2010). The Laval ruling in particular, but also the Viking, Rüffert and Luxembourg rulings have made scholars question the durability of the Nordic industrial relations model and scholars have even pointed to an erosion of the model (see e.g. Woolfson et al., 2013; Sippola, 2012; Thornqvist, 2011; Woolfson et al., 2010). But much of the sceptic analyses refers to the Swedish case, where the situation seems more uncertain. However, this article shows that the Danish industrial relations system has been re-calibrated, rather than eroded, to absorb the new conditions following the Laval-quartet. This re-calibration has happened through judicial and political adjustments, much of which has had an explicit neo-corporatist nature, where the position of the labour market organisations might even have been reinforced following the Laval-quartet.<br/>
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".