A New Wave of Solidarity in a Sea of Economic Interests: Can the Pillar Sail in the Asymmetric Tides Between the Internal Market and the Social Dimension of the EU?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A decade after the game-changing cases of Viking and Laval where the European Court of Justice (ECJ) decided in favour of the freedom to provide services and establishment over the right to collective action, the Commission launched the European Pillar of Social Rights (EPSR), which could be key in reversing the damages that these cases caused to social protection in the EU. Viking and Laval symbolised the imbalances between the (mostly) national social systems and the EU-wide internal market. These cases and the following jurisprudence added to the relative weakness of the EU’s social dimension— which is seen as insufficient to counterbalance the hollowing out of the national social systems—proved the necessity of bringing ‘the social’ to the core of the EU, giving sense to the objective set in Article 3 TEU of the EU being a social market economy. A true social market economy is compelled to address the issue of asymmetry between the ‘social’ and the ‘market’ that is so inherent to the EU, which requires, at the very least, to put in place a coordinated approach to social protection between the Member States. The EPSR represents a renewed consensus that social progress is central to the European project. This article discusses the possibilities that the EPSR offers to redress the imbalances in EU law by challenging the primacy given to the internal market over other EU policies. The role of the EPSR is discussed from the perspective of the latent impact of this instrument in contributing to the policy objective of fighting poverty and social exclusion.
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 | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.055 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.030 | 0.030 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".