Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.034 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".