MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2601602316

A militarização da justiça e a defesa da democracia

2011· article· pt· W2601602316 on OpenAlexaff
Daniel dos Santos

Bibliographic record

VenueAmericanae (AECID Library) · 2011
Typearticle
Languagept
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicBrazilian Legal Issues
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceHumanitiesArt
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Traduzido por Bruno CardosoEste artigo aborda os modos de ação pública de um crescente militarismo em nossos dias e questiona a ameaça por ele representada para a cidadania, em contraposição com o Estado e as instituições. Disseminado graças ao controle das representações e das tecnologias de segurança, o militarismo acaba incorporado pela sociedade, fragmentando-a e pondo em risco o pensamento ultrapolítico. A democracia, apenas possível por meio deste, deve, assim, empreender, através da revisão das concepções de liberdade, igualdade e fraternidade, a reforma da justiça, hoje militarizada, e a incorporação de valores como o perdão e a hospitalidade incondicionais. The article The Militarisation of Justice and Defence of Democracy addresses the current modes of public action of increasing militarism and questionsthe threat this represents to citizenship, counterposed to the State and institutions. The control of security technologies and representations has led to the spread of militarism, which has been incorporated into society, fragmenting it and placing ultrapolitical thought at risk. Democracy, only possible through suchthought, must therefore revise the concepts of liberty, equality and fraternity in order to reform the currently militarised justice system and incorporate values such as unconditional forgiveness and hospitality.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.083

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0080.025
Scholarly communication0.0140.007
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0040.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.001

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 head0.292
Teacher spread0.227 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations2
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmericanae (AECID Library)Same topicBrazilian Legal IssuesFrench-language works237,207