Direito Financeiro e os Fundos de Exploração de Recursos Naturais Não Renováveis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Alongside expectations of an increase in revenue from the exploration of oil and gas after the discovery of Brazil's pre-salt layer, important issues emerged on the best methods of administering public revenue in the benefit of current public interest and futures generations. In this context, the Executive Branch sent to the National Congress a proposal for a new regulatory framework for the formulation and implementation of public policies in the energy sector. As part of this policy a Social Fund of petroleum and a Sovereign Wealth Fund were created in order to create a source of resources for social and regional development, though programs and projects aimed at combating poverty and stimulating development. In light of this, this dissertation aims to analyze Brazil's Social Fund from experiences in other countries who also have Sovereign Wealth Funds: Norway, Chile, Botswana, Alberta (Canada) and Alaska (United States of America). It is possible to observe, through these selected experiences, possible hits and misses that may contribute as lessons to improve Brazil's fund regulation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
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.
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".