The Legal Development of the Notion of Human Dignity in the Constitutional Jurisprudence
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT: The present paper, based on a comparative method, aims to analyze the dimension given by the constitutional courts of the United States of America, Germany, South Africa, Israel, France, Canada and Brazil, as well as in the regional systems of protection of Human Rights With respect to the concept and extension of the principle of the dignity of the human person, establishing approximations and critical analyzes on philosophical aspects that permeate its birth and its cultural, individual and jurisprudential assimilations. Finally, it is concluded that while dignity-based reputation is a universal virtue, its content largely depends on the social, religious, and traditional values of certain communities.KEYWORDS: Dignity. Judicial Interpretation. Concept. RESUMO: O presente artigo científico, partindo de método comparado, objetiva analisar a dimensão dada pelas cortes constitucionais dos Estados Unidos da América, Alemanha, África do Sul, Israel, França, Canadá e Brasil, bem como nos sistemas regionais de tutela dos Direitos Humanos no que diz respeito ao conceito e à extensão do princípio da dignidade da pessoa humana, estabelecendo aproximações e análises críticas sobre aspectos filosóficos que permeiam seu nascedouro e suas assimilações culturais, individuais e jurisprudenciais. Por fim, conclui-se que enquanto a reputação baseada na dignidade for uma virtude universal, seu conteúdo depende largamente de valores sociais, religiosos e tradicionais de certas comunidades.PALAVRAS-CHAVES: Dignidade. Interpretação judicial. Conceito.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it