The Fundamentalisation of Social Rights
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The place and legal value of social rights in the EU Charter is only one episode (albeit a long drawn out episode, lasting since 2000)in the ongoing struggle about the ‘fundamentalisation’ of social rights, which is the subject of the contributions to this collective Working Paper. In the European Union itself, another arena of this struggle was opened up more recently by the judgments of the European Court of Justice in the cases Laval, Viking and Rüffert, which are amply discussed in several contributions of the Working Paper. Issues relating to the recognition of a fundamental legal status to social rights also occur in other contexts than that of the European Union, namely in the development and monitoring of international human rights norms, and also in the national legal context. This Working Paper contains the combined output of current doctoral research at the EUI in these two fields: of international and European human rights law, and of comparative and European labour law. The contributions which the reader will find in the following pages take stock of the current debate on the fundamental status of social rights, and raise a number of interesting perspectives on how to carry that debate forward.
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 | 0.015 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.095 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".