Bibliographic record
Abstract
Book, written in Slovene, discusses the legal content and scope of the concept of discriminatory harassment, which is deemed to be an unlawful discrimination under modern EU non-discrimination law, in the context of implementation of provisions of relevant EU directives in legal systems of the United Kingdom and Ireland. the two most important EU non-discrimination directives, adopted under Article 13 of the Treaty Establishing the European Community (now Article 19 of the treaty on the Functioning of the European union) - Racial Equality Directive (Directive 2000/43/EC) and Employment Framework Directive (Directive 2000/78/EC) - explicity mention harassment as prohibited form of discrimination. Legal definitions contained in these two directives define harassment as discriminationdiscrimination itself. Prior to the transposition of the EU non-discrimination directives into their laws, while few member states tackled this issue either within the context of the law on equal treatment (e.g. Denmark, the United Kingdom and Ireland) or outside this context (e.g. France), that is in the framework of criminal, civil, health and safety or employment legislation. As a result of the implementation of relevant provisions of the two main non-discrimination directives (Directives 200/43/EC and 200/78/EC) a definition of harassment has been included in legislations of all EU member states. In most member states such legislative definition is a literal copy of the definition of harrasment that can be found in the Directives 2000/43/EC and 2000/78/EC. The approach to the definition of harassment that appears to be the most "generous" from the perspective of victims of discriminatory harrasment is the one that was taken by British legislator. Such legal position in respect of the prohibition of discrimination has been developed in British case law and is based on the extensive interpretation of non-discrimination laws.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.024 | 0.015 |
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".