Bibliographic record
Abstract
Kolektivne pogodbe so zelo ucinkovito sredstvo za urejanje delovnih pogojev ter razmerij med socialnimi partnerji. Sistem sklepanja kolektivnih pogodb je svoboden in prostovoljen, kar je tudi na splosno, eno izmed temeljnih nacel kolektivnih pogodb. Postopek sklepanja kolektivnih pogodb zajema opredelitev strank kolektivnih pogajanj, proces pogajanja, ter registracijo in objavo sporazumno sklenjene kolektivne pogodbe. Na teh temeljnih nacelih pa sloni tudi nas Zakon o kolektivnih pogodbah, kateri ne predpisuje obveznega sklepanja kolektivnih pogodb niti ne predpisuje obvezne sestavine. Kar pomeni, da obstaja avtonomija pogodbenih strank, katere lahko svobodno urejajo medsebojna delovnopravna razmerja. Vendar pa obstaja tudi omejitev avtonomije kolektivnih pogajanj, ampak to le v primeru, ce bi slo za omejevanje zaradi zagotavljanja ali varstva pravic drugih. Tako omejitev pa lahko doloci le Ustava ali zakon. Na nacionalno pravno ureditev avtonomije kolektivnega pogajanja vpliva tudi pravo EU, kar je razvidno iz novejse prakse Sodisca Evropske Unije, predvsem v zadevah ki se nanasajo na uporabo pravil EU o konkurenci, prostem pretoku oseb, opravljanju storitev in s podrocja socialne politike. Tu gre za sodno prakso v relevantnih zadevah Laval in Viking, iz katerih izhaja stalisce, da iz prava EU ne bi smelo izhajati strožje ali pa dodatne omejitve, kot pa pravico do kolektivnega pogajanja jamcijo tradicije in nacionalne zakonodaje držav clanic.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".