Os sistemas de weak-form judicial review e o controle de constitucionalidade brasileiro
Bibliographic record
Abstract
O presente trabalho possui o objetivo de questionar a possibilidade de aplicação dos mecanismos de controle fraco de constitucionalidade ao sistema de controle e fiscalização das normas do Brasil. Assim, busca-se fazer um estudo acerca dos sistemas de controle fraco de constitucionalidade, nomeadamente os sistemas encontrados na Nova Zelândia, Inglaterra e Canadá, demonstrando que o século XX trouxe ao mundo uma nova forma de pensar o controle das normas, que superam os modelos clássicos de controle de constitucionalidade mundialmente conhecidos, quais sejam: o modelo americano e o modelo europeu; trazendo consigo um modelo pautado no diálogo entre as instituições, proporcionando um fortalecimento das mesmas, por meio de uma atitude mais balanceada, em contraposição aos modelos que concedem demasiado poder às cortes. Ao final, então, com base em referidos estudos, contextualiza-se o modelo brasileiro para possibilitar o fazimento de algumas propostas de alteração do atual modelo de controle de constitucionalidade das normas. ABSTRACT This work aims to question the possibility of applying weak-form mechanisms in brazilian constitutional review system. Thus, we seek to make a study about the weak-form judicial review systems, as the ones founded in New Zealand, England, and Canada, demonstrating that the twentieth century brought to the world a new way of thinking about judicial review that exceed the classical models, namely: the american model and the european model; bringing with it a model based on institutional dialogue, providing a strengthening of the institutions through a more balanced attitude, as opposed to the models that give too much power to the courts. At the end, then, based on these studies, it contextualizes the brazilian model 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.
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 | 0.011 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 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 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".