Bibliographic record
Abstract
This special issue of the International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations contains a selection of articles focusing on sanctions and remedies for unlawful collective action in an international and European perspective.The background for the choice of topic is to be found in the debates following on from the Laval and Viking judgments 1 of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), especially within European Union (EU) Member States, but also in developments in the recent court practice of the European Court of Human Rights and the tensions within the International Labour Organization regarding the interpretation of Convention No. 87 and its status as the core Convention setting out the global standard for freedom of association, including the right to strike.The six articles in this special issue were initiated and commissioned by the ReMarkLab-programme, which is sponsored by the Swedish Council for Working Life and Social Research.2 The concrete impetus was the judgment by the Swedish Labour Court in the national follow-up to the Laval judgment, where the Court found that EU-law required it to impose punitive damages on the trade unions that had undertaken collective action.3 The earlier case law from the CJEU, on which the Court based its judgment and referred to, dealt with competition law and several commentators strongly doubted that these cases could be regarded as providing a general precedent for principles of tort law 1 Case C-341/05 [2007] ECR I-11767 and Case C-438/05 [2007] ECR I-10779. 2The programme is led by the author: the project on sanctions and remedies for collective action was designed and developed in close cooperation with Professor Jonas Malmberg.In 2013 he became Chair of the Swedish Labour Court and concluded his collaboration with the project.
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 | 0.003 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.120 | 0.059 |
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".