MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

O (DES)ACESSO À JUSTIÇA: O PROCESSO JUDICIAL ELETRÔNICO NO TOCANTINS

2017· article· pt· W2793900226 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueRevista Cereus · 2017
Typearticle
Languagept
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicBrazilian Legal Issues
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article is result of a bibliographic search that has as main focus the literature review about the judicial informatization of the process.The problem of this search looked to investigate if the new tool of information technology used by Tocantinense State Law Court helps or not with the access to Law Court system by people.The bibliographical search about the "electronic judicial process" with the Brazilian legislation in march of 2017 about the law subject-matter resulted in discovering as positives as negatives aspects about the judicial informatization of the process.And this article deduces that judicial information in Brazil is an instrument of access to justice, especially because it improves and makes more fast and efficient the justice system.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.614
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0040.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.006

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.

Opus teacher head0.056
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.315 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it