Gerenciamento de processos na justiça civil brasileira: análise das técnicas de gerenciamento processual
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis analyzes the activities practiced by the Judiciary in the management of repetitive lawsuits, establishing a distinction between case management and management of the lawsuits.It analyzes the development of case management theory in other countries (English law, US law, Portuguese law and French law), and the reception of this theory by Brazilian doctrine.The distinction between the case management and the management of lawsuits is based on the vectors of customization and agreement philosophy, characteristic of the first, and of the standardization and decision concentration, typical of the latter.The theme of the thesis is also examined in the context of judicial activism, which is reinforced by the use of management lawsuits powers.It studies the management of lawsuits procedures and the deficiencies of some procedural instruments of resolution of repetitive lawsuits.The management of lawsuits was put to test in view of the fundamental civil procedural principles: irrevocability, equality, impartiality, independence, adversarial principle and publicity, concluding that the management of lawsuits currently existing in the Brazilian procedural system conflicts with some of those principles, besides having a more authoritarian character than the jurisdiction practiced in the traditional suits does.The thesis also concludes that management of lawsuits measures are inevitable in view of the saturation of the Brazilian Judiciary system, but the jurisdiction principles must be respected.
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 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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".