El Ingreso Mínimo Vital como derecho fundamental social de nueva generación
Bibliographic record
Abstract
El presente trabajo realiza una valoración del derecho al ingreso mínimo vital (IMV) en España tras su establecimiento mediante la legislación de 2020-2021.En primer lugar, se pone el énfasis en su crucial reconocimiento jurídico, que significa tanto la superación de enfoques éticos basados en las virtudes de la caridad como la instauración de un marco legal más sólido.Sin embargo, en segundo lugar, se critican los aspectos deficitarios de ese reconocimiento jurídico, en la medida en que la legislación de 2020-2021 se inspira en estándares europeos de soft-law en lugar del instrumento legal vinculante por excelencia en la materia (la Carta Social Europea, que dota de mayor estabilidad y garantías de no regresión).A continuación, se someten a escrutinio los déficits de la configuración del IMV como derecho fundamental en sus aspectos básicos (titulares, contenido, límites y garantías).Por último, se reflexiona sobre la optimización de la eficacia del IMV a la luz de propuestas más avanzadas de renta básica universal.
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
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.
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".