O SUPREMO TRIBUNAL FEDERAL E O DIREITO INTERNACIONAL: UMA ANÁLISE JURISPRUDENCIAL
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Temas como Sociedade Civil e Direitos Humanos desencadeiam longos debates no plano do direito internacional, seja ele de abrangência regional como o caso do MERCOSUL, continental como a OEA ou mundial, a exemplo da ONU. Tais debates ten¬tam corrigir ou minimizar problemas comuns, existentes em diversos países por meio de Convenções e Acordos que, ao serem ratificados, criam decretos que são a confirmação de suas validades no plano jurí¬dico interno. No entanto, a simples adesão ou ratificação de um decreto internacional não significa que ele é, em todos os casos, levado em con¬ta; eis a questão da legitimação normativa. Por isso, a preocupação do artigo é averiguar se os Decretos que envolvem os temas citados são de fato aplicados pelo STF em sua jurisprudência, de forma que promova efeitos internos ou não.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".