THE IMPACT OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE EUROPEAN UNION SOCIAL POLICY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Social policy as a subject of welfare state has been studied mostly from the point of citizenship rights. Yet, the regulations of social policies at the European Union (EU) level are increasing day by day, which makes it an important subject for the European studies. Therefore, it is necessary to seek an answer to the question of how social policies that have been perceived as main subject of national policies have become part of the European legislation. This research attempts to answer this question. The research benefits from the cases of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) as an explanatory factor, following the elaboration of social policy and European integration relationship. Thus, a bridge between various welfare systems and a uniformed EU social policy is more likely to be built. The paper argues that as the selected cases, Viking and Laval indicate, the CJEU is an important actor that promotes the argument about social policies at the EU level. The cases are not offering only a solution to the pertinent problem but also supporting more consistent social policies in the member states of the EU thanks to its “spill- over” impact.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.022 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".