Os sistemas de weak-form judicial review e o controle de constitucionalidade brasileiro
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
O presente trabalho possui o objetivo de questionar a possibilidade de aplicação dos \nmecanismos de controle fraco de constitucionalidade ao sistema de controle e fiscalização \ndas normas do Brasil. Assim, busca-se fazer um estudo acerca dos sistemas de controle fraco \nde constitucionalidade, nomeadamente os sistemas encontrados na Nova Zelândia, Inglaterra \ne Canadá, demonstrando que o século XX trouxe ao mundo uma nova forma de pensar o \ncontrole das normas, que superam os modelos clássicos de controle de constitucionalidade \nmundialmente conhecidos, quais sejam: o modelo americano e o modelo europeu; trazendo \nconsigo um modelo pautado no diálogo entre as instituições, proporcionando um \nfortalecimento das mesmas, por meio de uma atitude mais balanceada, em contraposição aos \nmodelos que concedem demasiado poder às cortes. Ao final, então, com base em referidos \nestudos, contextualiza-se o modelo brasileiro para possibilitar o fazimento de algumas \npropostas de alteração do atual modelo de controle de constitucionalidade das normas. ABSTRACT \nThis work aims to question the possibility of applying weak-form mechanisms in brazilian \nconstitutional review system. Thus, we seek to make a study about the weak-form judicial \nreview systems, as the ones founded in New Zealand, England, and Canada, demonstrating \nthat the twentieth century brought to the world a new way of thinking about judicial review \nthat exceed the classical models, namely: the american model and the european model; \nbringing with it a model based on institutional dialogue, providing a strengthening of the \ninstitutions through a more balanced attitude, as opposed to the models that give too much \npower to the courts. At the end, then, based on these studies, it contextualizes the brazilian \nmodel to enable the changes proposal to the current model of the rules of judicial review.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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