MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2790090156 · doi:10.1177/201395251200300103

The Proposal for a (So-Called) ‘Monti II’ Regulation on the Exercise of the Right to Take Collective Action within the Context of the Freedom of Establishment and the Freedom to Provide Services: Changing without Reversing, Regulating without Affecting

2012· article· en· W2790090156 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Marco Rocca

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Labour Law Journal · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLabor Movements and Unions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDoctrineLawContext (archaeology)Political scienceHuman rightsAction (physics)Consistency (knowledge bases)Fundamental rightsMemorandumCommissionLaw and economicsLegislationMemorandum of understandingEconomic JusticeSociologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

On the 21 March 2012 the European Commission adopted its proposal for a Regulation on the exercise of the right to take collective action within the context of the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services. Conceived as both a response and a clarification of the case law of the Court of Justice, the new Regulation should address the widely debated problem of the relationship between fundamental freedoms and fundamental social rights. The present contribution seeks to identify the objectives of the proposal, through a critical reading of its text and of the explanatory memorandum, to assess its potential effect. The analysis is developed around two main themes: the relationship of the proposal with the recent case law of the European Court of Human Rights regarding the right to strike, and its consistency with the doctrine developed by the CJEU in Viking and Laval.

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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score0.085

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.005
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.025
Scholarly communication0.0110.007
Open science0.0050.007
Research integrity0.0500.036
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations13
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Labour Law JournalSame topicLabor Movements and UnionsFrench-language works237,207