Do Princípio à Prática: um estudo sobre as políticas públicas para direitos humanos e o caso do refúgio no Canadá
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Os Direitos Humanos são princípios que orientam ou devem orientar as ações dos Estados, sociedades e indivíduos, porém, estes não possuem necessariamente o poder de configurar obrigações jurídicas. Bucci (2001) argumenta que para transformá-los de princípios em instrumentos com poder de regra, é necessário estabelecer políticas públicas para direitos humanos. Assim, este trabalho busca verificar a hipótese da autora através de um estudo de caso sobre o sistema de refúgio no Canadá a fim de observar os efeitos causados pela construção de uma política pública apropriada para abordar o problema em questão. O país, que aderiu tardiamente aos acordos internacionais sobre o refúgio, não somente adequou-se às normas propostas pela comunidade internacional, comotornou-se referência na recepção, proteção e reassentamento de refugiados.Palavras-chave: Políticas Públicas, Direitos Humanos, Canadá.ABSTRACTHuman Rights are principles that guide, or should guide, the actions of States and societies and individuals, but they don’t necessarily have the power to create judicial obligations. Bucci (2001) states that the path to transform them from principles to tools with legal power, it is necessary to develop public policies for human rights. Therefore, this work aspires to verify the author’s hypothesis through a case study on Canada’s refuge system to observe the effects of the development of an appropriate public policy to this end. The country, a late adherent to the international treaties on refugees, not only adapted to the norms proposed by the international community but also became a point of reference for the reception, protection and resettlement of refugees.Keywords: Public Policies, Human Rights, Canada.Recebido em: 11 fev. 2019 | Aceito em: 03 dez. 2019
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.033 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".