O “novo” CPC e a oportunidade desperdiçada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Encontra-se em tramitação no Congresso Nacional o projeto do “novo” CPC, em sua enésima versão. Já quando de sua apresentação inicial, no Senado da República, mostrava-se o texto carente de sentido e direção. Agora, “mutilado” e “enxertado” por todos os lados, desidratado de cientificidade e utilidade como resultado de longa negociação política, refém do acaso e do descuido, resume-se a alguns poucos avanços e tantos e inexplicáveis retrocessos. Nesta breve reflexão, apresentamos a estrutura inicial do projeto do “novo” CPC, as principais motivações (diretrizes) utilizadas pela comissão inicial formada no Senado da República, os cinco objetivos por ela elencados, o diálogo havido entre a Constituição Federal e o Código de Ritos para, então, pontuar os seus mais graves problemas a partir da perspectiva de quem opera no dia a dia do fórum, como Juiz de Direito e como Advogada, concluindo tratar-se de uma rara oportunidade desperdiçada.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.025 | 0.004 |
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".