MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1906298641 · doi:10.12660/rda.v229.2002.46435

Poder normativo das agências reguladoras norte-americanas

2002· article· pt· W1906298641 on OpenAlexaff
Leila Cuéllar

Bibliographic record

VenueRevista de Direito Administrativo · 2002
Typearticle
Languagept
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicBrazilian Legal Issues
Canadian institutionsNortel (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

1. Introdução. 2. Direito administrativo norte-americano e agências administrativas. 2.1. Noção de direito administrativo para o direito norte-americano. 2.2. Noção de agências administrativas 2.2.1. Conceito. 2.2.2. Classificações. 2.3. Evolução do direito administrativo norte-americano. 3. O poder normativo das agências reguladoras norte-americanas. 3.1. Delegação de poderes. 3.2. A atividade normativa das agências reguladoras. 3.2.1. Noção de regulamento. 3.2.2. Classes de regulamentos. 3.2.3. Procedimentos normativos. 3.3.4. Considerações acerca da atividade normativa. 3.3.4.1. Princípio da informação. 3.3.4.2. Princípio da participação. 3.4.3. Princípio da responsabilidade ("accollntability"). 4. Considerações finais. Referências bibliográficas.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.533
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.003

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.296 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevista de Direito AdministrativoSame topicBrazilian Legal IssuesFrench-language works237,207