MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2612699513

Social Guarantees for Artists in Lithuania and the European Union

2009· article· en· W2612699513 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Juozas Tartilas

Bibliographic record

VenueSocietal Studies · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicSocio-economic Development and Sustainability
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPensionSocial insuranceWork (physics)PaymentQuarter (Canadian coin)Social securityThe RepublicService (business)Paid workBusinessLabour economicsSociologyEconomicsLawPolitical scienceFinanceWorking hoursHistoryMarketing
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

All citizens of the Republic of Lithuania over 16 years of age have the right to insure with voluntary social insurance. There are two types of insurance – voluntary pension insurance and voluntary social insurance for sickness and motherhood allowances. In the case of pension insurance, contributions are paid quarterly, and those contributions are 50 percent of the basic pension, while sickness and maternity contributions are paid at least once per quarter and the sum of the contribution can vary from 10 to 200 Litas per month. Social guarantees for artists constitute a specific sphere of regulation. The main problem is that artists in accordance with their work specifics do not have a stable income, and their nature of work is not defined as regards work time, work place, work tools, and an employment contract itself. For instance, a sculptor can work at home (workshop) at the time suitable for his creative inspiration (day or night), using his own work instruments, and the work may take a few years. Payment for a concluded work can be done in advance (provided that there is a contract-giver) and after the conclusion of works. This and other reasons complicate the relations of artists and Sodra, the State Social Insurance Fund Board of the Republic of Lithuania (e. g., issues on how many months per year an artist is working, what is his length of service, income, the problem of contribution periodicity, etc.). Therefore, it is hard to solve the administrative difficulties that are connected with applying Sodra’s tax to artists. Even if these problems are solved, there still arises a problem of great importance taking into account the future problems of Sodra, i. e. the problem of the reality of earned pensions to all insurants, especially to the artists, whose legal status in case of pension receiving is not strictly defined. The article analyzes the experience of other European Union member states in the field of artists’ social guarantees.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.001
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.046
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.233 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSocietal StudiesSame topicSocio-economic Development and SustainabilityFrench-language works237,207