Transnational judicial dialogue and worker protection in the gig economy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Can transnational judicial dialogue be an efficient mechanism to protect workers’ labor rights in the gig economy? As long as digital platforms operate transnationally, the negative externalities generated by them —especially regarding compliance with labor regulatory standards— become common problems in the countries of a given region. The aim of the research is to answer this problem, and in order to do so a broad literature review and a study of the cases Uber Technologies Inc. v. Heller, Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court and case Uber B.V. and others v Aslam and others, judged by the Supreme Court of Canada, the Supreme Court of California, and the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, were conducted respectively. A literature review and deductive method were used.It has been found that transnational judicial dialogue can enhance the persuasiveness, authority, and legitimacy of individual judicial decisions rendered in national courts, especially in Brazilian Labor Courts, as well as serve as an instance of collective deliberation to address common problems.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".