MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2790858143 · doi:10.1017/s1574019618000068

How has the Court of Justice changed its management and approach towards the social <i>acquis</i>?

2018· article· en· W2790858143 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
A. C. L. Davies

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Constitutional Law Review · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDiscrimination and Equality Law
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFraming (construction)CharterEuropean court of justicePolitical scienceLawEuropean Union lawLabour lawRelevance (law)Economic JusticeSociologyLaw and economicsEuropean unionEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Social Europe – Case law of the Court of Justice – ‘Real’ and ‘apparent’ displacement – Court’s interpretive task more complex and contested – Directives based on ‘flexicurity’ policy – Cases in which workers have competing interests, e.g. age discrimination – Viking and Laval – Re-framing of employers’ interests as fundamental rights under Article 16 EU Charter – Declining relevance of the Court in labour law – Challenges for EU labour lawyers

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)0.140
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.200
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.140
Threshold uncertainty score0.739

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1400.200
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0150.047
Scholarly communication0.0450.028
Open science0.0080.010
Research integrity0.0370.030
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.002

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 head0.188
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.164 · 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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Constitutional Law ReviewSame topicDiscrimination and Equality LawFrench-language works237,207