The judicialisation of European Trade Union Confederation action: From the Viking and Laval cases to defending fundamental social rights
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines the development and implementation of judicial strategies by the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) over the last fifteen years. Firstly, the author shows that this strategy was born in the wake of the Viking and Laval cases, with the aim of using the standards and complaint mechanisms of the Council of Europe and the International Labour Organisation to overturn those case laws. Secondly, the author highlights the normalisation and diversification of the objectives pursued by the ETUC's judicial strategy, as well as the limits of this strategy before the Court of Justice of the European Union. Finally, the author analyses the ETUC's activities in support of fundamental social rights in the Council of Europe before the European Court of Human Rights and the European Committee of Social Rights.
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 | 0.027 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".