Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Court of Justice's social reputation was a cause for concern after the infamous Viking and Laval cases in 2007, leading to condemnations by the Committee of Expert of the ILO and the European Committee of Social Rights. 1 Its judgments in Rüffert and Commission v. Luxembourg in 2008 only worsened criticism from trade unions and many academic scholars of social law, social policy or industrial relations. However a certain evolution could have an impact on the Court's reasoning. In 2009 the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights entered into the primary legal order of the EU, highlighting, i.a., the recognition of the right to collective bargaining and collective action as fundamental social rights in Europe. Furthermore, there is the close connection between the EU Charter and the European Convention on Human Rights. The EU itself also faced (and still faces) criticism for the many austerity measures it recommended through economic governance to combat the economic and financial crisis. Consequently, 2015 seems to be a year of a subtle change or evolution in the internal market v. social protection reasoning of the CJEU. In the cases of ESA and RegiopPost the Court took a somewhat more social-friendly approach, which could herald a more balanced case law for the future.
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 | 0.065 | 0.100 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.064 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.023 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.018 | 0.024 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".