Whether economic freedoms prevail over social rights under European Union law?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
At the beginning, the European integration was entirely market-oriented, therefore social policy had no major role in shaping the future of the region. The social progress was perceived as the spontaneous outcome of the overall economic growth. Nonetheless, throughout the years the competence of the EU in the social domain had gradually expanded and resulted in the recognition of social rights with the adoption of the Treaty of Amsterdam in 1997. The status of social rights have been further consolidated within the Community legal system and became equally important to the establishment of the internal market since the Treaty of Lisbon came into effect.\nThe European Court of Justice, when dealing with the restrictions of economic freedoms, in its early case-law applied the non-discrimination model. According to the model, as long as nationals were subject to the same rules as persons from other Member States were, national law was regarded as being compatible with EU law. Subsequently, the Court introduced the market access test, pursuant to wich, any unjustified restriction liable to impede activities of out-of-state entities was to be held as constituting an infringement of EU law. Over the time the market access test prevailed over the non-discrimination model. \nIn the years 2007 and 2008 the European Court of Justice gave judgments in four cases, also known as the Laval quartet. These cases concerned the balance between economic freedoms and social rights. The ECJ... [to full text]
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 | 0.013 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.032 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.016 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 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".