Bibliographic record
Abstract
O presente trabalho propõe uma nova classificação das disciplinas integrantes da teoria geral do processo, no âmbito da jurisdição cível ou não-penal. Limitado à jurisdição cível, são propostos novos critérios de divisão, em três grupos: a) processo para a defesa dos interesses públicos ou do patrimônio público, no qual se incluem o direito processual constitucional, o eleitoral, o ambiental, o administrativo e o tributário; b) processo para a defesa de interesses individuais privados, no qual se incluem o direito processual civil e o comercial e, por fim, c) o processo para a defesa de interesses individuais especiais, no qual se incluem o direito processual do trabalho, o agrário, o previdenciário e assistencial social, o do consumidor, o da infância e adolescência, o dos idosos e o acidentário e de portadores de deficiência. A construção e a definição do direito processual social só é possível no Brasil, com o conteúdo aqui proposto, a partir da evolução legislativa sofrida nas décadas de 80 e 90 do séc. XX, com a criação de regras especiais de proteção de outros grupos sociais considerados a parte frágil da relação processual.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".