Importação, Exportação e Consenso Regional na Corte Interamericana de Direitos Humanos
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A Corte Interamericana de Direitos Humanos elaborou um significativo corpo jurisprudencial de direitos humanos por meio da interpretação de convenções regionais de direitos humanos, da adaptação de precedentes globais, europeus e do soft law global. A Corte Interamericana também aspirou influenciar para além de sua região ao oferecer interpretações inovadoras dos direitos humanos e identificando normas caracterizadas como jus cogens. A metodologia da Corte nos anos recentes parece atribuir insuficiente consideração ao consenso da comunidade regional dos Estados como um fator na interpretação evolutiva de um tratado de direitos humanos. O artigo ilustra e critica essa tendência, e argumenta que maior atenção aos indícios de consenso regional poderia aprimorar a aceitação e a eficácia do sistema interamericano de direitos humanos.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".