MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6983157278

Lidskoprávní aspekty svobod pohybu v judikatuře ESD

2012· dissertation· en· W6983157278 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueDigital Repository (National Repository of Grey Literature) · 2012
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDiscrimination and Equality Law
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHuman rightsFundamental rightsEconomic JusticeConventionEuropean Union lawInternational human rights lawEuropean court of justiceCommon lawEuropean unionSources of law
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This thesis analyses in depth the seminal cases of the Court of Justice, namely C-341/05 Laval, C-438/05 Viking Line and C-346/06 Ruffert. The analysis starts with description of the decisions. Those are laid out both from the perspectives of the Advocates General and of the Court of Justice (chapter 2). Central aspects of the decisions are analysed in chapter 3. First, it is the decision to apply Community law (now EU law) to national social policy. This is not new in itself, but it is taken to unusual depth. Second, the Court of Justice decided to apply Community law to trade unions. This horizontal application of Community law has crucial implications on the human rights discourse of the Court. Third, we analyse how the Court viewed the issue whether the strike action violated the Treaty, and the issues of justification and proportionality. Chapter 4 focuses on human rights aspect of the decisions. The very use of human rights in Community law is briefly sketched. In more detail the implications of the likely accession of the European Union to the European Convention on Human rights are considered. Finally, the human rights discourse of the Court of Justice in the Laval and Viking cases is put to critical scrutiny. One of the determining elements in Laval and Viking is application of the Treaty...

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.828
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.290 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDigital Repository (National Repository of Grey Literature)Same topicDiscrimination and Equality LawFrench-language works237,207