MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3110001494 · doi:10.17863/cam.58772

EU ‘Social’ Policy From Employment Law to Labour Market Reform

2020· book-chapter· en· W3110001494 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueApollo (University of Cambridge) · 2020
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLabor Movements and Unions
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEconomic and Social Research Council
KeywordsLabour lawLabour economicsLaw reformFlexicuritySocial policyBusinessEconomicsMarket economyPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Depending on your perspective, EU social policy is either regarded as the soft bit of EU law, an essential component of citizenship, or a key element to ensure a level playing field in the EU’s single market. As we shall see, while there is an identifiable body of law which can loosely be described as ‘labour’ or ‘social’ policy, the coverage of social policy is far from comprehensive, and certainly does not represent a replication of national social policy on the EU stage. Many would argue that this is right, that social policy, of all areas, needs to be delivered close to those affected by it and so should not be a matter for the European Union at all. This raises the question, then, as to the role of, and justification for, EU-level ‘social’ policy, a question that has bedevilled the EU since its inception. This chapter presents four stories about EU social policy. The first, and easiest to relate, is the historical evolution of social policy where the different stages are signposted by the various Treaty amendments. It is a story of phases of great activity matched by lengthy periods of inertia (Part B). The second story concerns the contribution of the Court of Justice to the development of a distinctive EU social policy. While traditionally the Court has generally been seen as a supporter of the development of social rights, its true understanding of social issues has been brought into question by the controversial decisions in Viking and Laval, although subsequent events have forced something of a reassessment (Part C). The third story—for a lawyer at least—is much harder to relate because it is a story about a reorientation of approach to regulating the labour market in the EU. It is a story that cannot be told through hard law measures on employment law, but through a myriad of documents on employment policy (Part D). The fourth story is a story of challenges: about new forms of work, about the EU’s response to three crises (financial, covid and Brexit) and about a timid renaissance of social policy in the form of the Pillar of Social Rights (Part E).

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.925
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.223 · 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