Labour standards and EU Trade Agreements: analogies and differences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
According to the Lisbon Treaty, the common commercial policy is one of the exclusive competences of the European Union with reference to the member states. In recent years, several international agreements have been negotiated with trade partners. Among them, there are the EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) with the United States, whose talks are currently suspended. The EU is also discussing an agreement with the Latin-American Mercosur states. A common trait of these treaties is the presence of a ‘labour chapter’ dealing with the recognition and enforcement of work-related rights. In the literature, studies suggesting that such provisions can encourage improvements are confronted by research contributions arguing that trade openness can lead to a downgrading of working and welfare standards, with a lack of political will to enforce labour rights. While in principle the effects of a trade agreement on standards’ implementation can be uncertain, the terms concerning labour rights may exert a significant influence, since they can vary remarkably. The paper intends to analyse the three EU-related agreements under the perspective of labour and industrial relations conditions. Since international treaties of this kind are supposed to play a regulatory function, the examination of their potential influence should be considered in times of intense globalization.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".