Bibliographic record
Abstract
A social progress protocol has been suggested and demanded as a way of strengthening the protection of fundamental social rights in the EU Treaties. The jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in the Viking and Laval cases provided the impetus for this suggestion. The financial and economic crisis has increased the need for discussion, clarification and development of fundamental values, principles and rules of EU social policy. In light of the crisis, a social protocol should be designed in a comprehensive way. It should reinforce the position of human rights and it should define the model of the European social market economy. A high level of social protection should be stipulated. The draft of the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) is an adequate starting point, however, in light of the recent economic and social development a more comprehensive protocol is necessary. Given the different national traditions of social policy, a social protocol needs broad legal and political discussion in order to build the necessary consensus.
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 | 0.169 | 0.177 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.033 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.021 | 0.022 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.010 |
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".