Norma jurídica como fenômeno linguístico: aportes a uma definição pragmático-operacional (Legal Norm as a Linguistic Phenomenon: A Pragmatic-Semiotic Perspective)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Portuguese Abstract: Unidade e sistema sao ficcoes juridicas necessarias para o funcionamento regular do direito, especialmente para que tenhamos confianca de que juizes resolverao casos baseados no sistema juridico. Este artigo propoe uma concepcao diferente de sistema juridico. Se se pretende dar a sistema juridico um significado util sobre como as normas juridicas se relacionam entre si, propoe-se que um entendimento pragmatico de como o direito funciona preclui qualquer concepcao de sistema juridico como unidade. Isso nao significa que nao existe sistema juridico ou que juizes nao tomar por referencia um sistema ao tomar suas decisoes. Sugere-se que sistemas juridicos sao fomulacoes ad hoc e, portanto, constituem pluralidade, nao unidade. Este artigo se utiliza de desenvolvimentos contemporâneos sobre derrotabilidade normativa (legal defeasibility) e lacunas axiologicas (axiological gaps) para analisar o conceito de sistema juridico a partir do que considero uma perspectiva pragmatico-operacional. English Abstract: Unity and legal system are fictions required for law to work. Understanding law as a coherent unity is necessary for citizens to trust that courts will solve disputes based on the legal system. In this article, I want to propose a very different understanding of what legal system means. If the concept of legal system is to have any significance in terms of how legal rules relate to one another to create a system, I suggest that a realistic understanding of how law works precludes any conception of legal system as unity. This does not mean that there is no system at all or that judges do not rely on a system to reach a decision. However, I suggest that legal systems are ad hoc formulations and thus are not unitary but pluralistic. In this paper, building on contemporary developments on legal defeasibility and axiological gaps, I analyze the concept of legal system from what I call a pragmatic-semiotic perspective. The proposed pragmatic perspective considers how the interpretation of legal texts (and the construction of the meaning of legal norms) is done in semiotic stages. I suggest we can epistemologically divide the process of legal interpretation into four stages (from the first contact with the legal text to the final application of the norm), and that each stage gives rise to one specific type of legal 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.
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 | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.030 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".