MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Análise normativa sobre a voz da criança na legislação brasileira de proteção à infância

2016· article· pt· W2580691446 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueRevista gaúcha de enfermagem · 2016
Typearticle
Languagept
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicYouth, Drugs, and Violence
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical sciencePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: to identify and analyse children's voices in healthcare decision making in the discourse of Brazil's child protection laws. METHOD: Documentary normative analysis of Brazil's child protection legislation (1988-2012) based on the content analysis of nine texts, conducted in 2015. RESULTS: The legislation acknowledges and stresses the voice of children in the decision-making process in research and healthcare. Any recognition of the right to dignity, liberty, information, and protection depends on what the adult decision-maker (with parental authority) believes is the child's capacity for discernment and whether the situation will cause self-harm. CONCLUSIONS: the normative child protection discourse grants children a voice, although with restrictions and under the authority of the adult with parental authority.

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), 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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.728
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.280 · 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