Entre o raciocínio prático e o raciocínio jurídico. A narração de argumentos em um termo de declarações de um processo penal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Este trabalho tem como objeto de analise um termo de declaracoes que compoe um processo do Juizado Especial Criminal de Canoas (Rio Grande do Sul), relativo ao crime de desacato. Levando em conta quatro versoes do caso concreto que foram registradas no processo, tem-se o objetivo de mostrar que a narrativa constante no depoimento em foco esta a servico da argumentacao que embasa a denuncia oferecida pelo Ministerio Publico Federal, pois contribui para a refutacao de argumentos utilizados pelos reus ainda no momento em que foram acusados. De forma a atingir nosso objetivo, segue-se o quadro teorico da Analise Textual dos Discursos (ADAM, 2011) mais especificamente o conceito de sequencia argumentativa. Em consonância com esse aporte teorico, sao descritas duas sequencias presentes nesse depoimento. Os resultados mostram que os argumentos oriundos do raciocinio pratico de uma testemunha do caso concreto, ao serem registrados no termo de declaracoes, tornaram-se um recurso a servico da argumentacao juridica.
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 | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".