MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Declaración de inconstitucionalidad, modulación de efectos y buena fe del Estado en Brasil

2019· article· es· W2931435201 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

VenueCuestiones Constitucionales Revista Mexicana de Derecho Constitucional · 2019
Typearticle
Languagees
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicBrazilian Legal Issues
Canadian institutionsOptech (Canada)
FundersUniversidad Nacional Autónoma de México
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Este artículo presenta un estudio del régimen de modulación de efectos de los actos declarados inconstitucionales por el Tribunal Supremo Federal de Brasil, introducido por una ley innovadora en materia de control de constitucionalidad: la Ley 9868/99. La investigación utiliza la técnica de revisión bibliográfica, legislativa y jurisprudencial con los siguientes objetivos: a) demostrar que la naturaleza de la inconstitucionalidad (nulidad y anulabilidad) no impide reconocer efectos a las leyes inconstitucionales, incluso en los regímenes de control que adoptan el dogma de la nulidad del acto inconstitucional; b) proponer una teoría interpretativa de la modulación de efectos centrada en los derechos fundamentales y la dignidad humana, y c) responder, con base en el principio de la buena fe, si el Estado puede, en definitiva, beneficiarse del reconocimiento de efectos de leyes que lesionan derechos fundamentales del sujeto, tales como la libertad y el patrimonio.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.788
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.004

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.287 · 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