MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7019197098

Free Movement vs. Social Rights in an Enlarged Union - the Laval and Viking Cases before the ECJ

2007· article· en· W7019197098 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEuropean Law and Migration
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFree movementMember stateDirectiveMember statesSocial rightsState (computer science)Action (physics)Labour law
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The paper discusses two references before the ECJ concerning the right of social action of labour unions in “old” Member countries (Sweden and Finland) against posting of workers from a company of a “new” Member state (Laval from Latvia) respectively re-flagging a ferry (“Rosella” owned by Viking-Finland ) to a “new” Member country (Estonia). The free movement provisions of Art. 49 and 43 EC are in principle applicable against collective action, unless justified by proportionate social policy reasons. This is denied in Laval because of discriminatory elements in Swedish labour law (Lex Britannia) and non-applicability of the posted workers directive 96/71, but confirmed in Viking which concerns a “normal” and proportional industrial conflict justified on social policy grounds.

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.868
Threshold uncertainty score0.982

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.296
Teacher spread0.276 · 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

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEuropean Law and MigrationFrench-language works237,207