MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A DOUTRINA DO RECONHECIMENTO INTERNACIONAL DOS DIREITOS ADQUIRIDOS: COMITAS GENTIUM, VESTED RIGHTS E DROIT ACQUIS

2018· article· pt· W2886706237 on OpenAlexaff
Paul Hugo Weberbauer, Danielle Rocha Santos, Aurélio Agostinho da Bôaviagem

Bibliographic record

VenueRevista Acadêmica da Faculdade de Direito do Recife · 2018
Typearticle
Languagept
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicBrazilian Legal Issues
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Muitos juristas cometem o equívoco de restringir a temática dos direitos adquiridos campos do Direito constitucional e, principalmente, do Direito Intertemporal. Para remover essa concepção equivocada, o presente estudo analisa os direitos adquiridos sob a perspectiva do Direito Internacional Privado, ou melhor, analisar o que se denomina de dimensão espacial dos direitos adquiridos, qual desde seu surgimento na doutrina de Savigny tornou-se um assunto de alta complexidade na Ciência Jurídica contemporânea. Para esse fim, o estudo analisa três das principais doutrinas que surgiram nessa dimensão dos direitos adquiridos: (1) direitos adquiridos como parte do conflito de leis de Direito Internacional privado; (2) a doutrina do vested rights; e (3) a doutrina do reconhecimento dos direitos adquiridos (droit acquis). A metodologia empregada foi a do método histórico, no qual consistiu na adoção da descrição das principais teorias envolvidas e o apontamento de sua concepção sobre o tema, bem como apontar suas fragilidades. Essa metodologia foi apoiada na investigação das principais obras doutrinárias sobre o tema.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.066

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0070.035
Scholarly communication0.0110.008
Open science0.0010.008
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.040
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.309 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevista Acadêmica da Faculdade de Direito do RecifeSame topicBrazilian Legal IssuesFrench-language works237,207