MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1543364541 · doi:10.17058/rdunisc.v0i0.3594

A utilização do mínimo existencial como critério de exigibilidade judicial dos direitos fundamentais econômicos e sociais: reflexões críticas

2013· article· pt· W1543364541 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueRevista do Direito · 2013
Typearticle
Languagept
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicBrazilian Legal Issues
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhilosophyHumanitiesPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

O presente trabalho tem por objetivo examinar, sob uma perspectiva crítica, a utilização da noção de mínimo existencial como um critério determinante para delimitar a exigibilidade judicial dos direitos fundamentais econômicos e sociais. Para tanto, busca-se precisar o significado jurídico conferido ao conceito, perpassando pela análise de suas origens, natureza e fundamentos jurídicos, estrutura normativa, relação com os direitos fundamentais econômicos e sociais, para demonstrar que a doutrina e a jurisprudência brasileiras têm se valido do mínimo existencial de maneiras distintas e com propósitos diferenciados. Ao longo do estudo, são apresentados alguns caminhos e posicionamentos voltados a um emprego funcional do conceito, demonstrando a impossibilidade de utilizá-lo como critério definitivo para delinear a exigibilidade judicial dos direitos fundamentais sociais.

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)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.682
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0070.002
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.007

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.319 · 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