Os acordos de eleição de foro nos contratos internacionais: perspectivas a partir da entrada em vigor do novo Código de Processo Civil brasileiro
Bibliographic record
Abstract
El presente artículo analiza el trato dispensado por el derecho brasileño a la autonomía de la voluntad de las partes en lo que dice respecto a la elección del juez competente para dirimir las controversias derivadas del contrato internacional. Para este análisis, se llevó en consideración la legislación de fuente interna y convencional, la doctrina y la jurisprudencia, a partir de dos perspectivas: la primera, relacionada a la aplicación del Código de Proceso Civil de 1973 y la segunda referente a la aplicación del Código de Proceso Civil de 2015. Todo ello, para indicar cómo se dará este periodo de transición entre el viejo y el nuevo Código, considerando que el régimen aplicado hasta marzo de 2016 determinaba la competencia concurrente del juez brasileño, pese a la existencia de cláusula de elección de foro extranjero incluida en el contrato internacional.
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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 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".