MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3006335579 · doi:10.35707/dostresmil/1907

El régimen jurídico de los actos administrativos del Banco de la República, ¿derecho administrativo o derecho económico?

2017· article· es· W3006335579 on OpenAlexaff
Carlos Forero Hernández

Bibliographic record

VenueDos mil tres mil · 2017
Typearticle
Languagees
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicComparative constitutional jurisprudence studies
Canadian institutionsOptech (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDerechoPolitical scienceHumanitiesPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

El objeto de este escrito es presentar a la comunidad académica la conveniencia de hablar de derecho económico, y no de derecho administrativo, cuando nos referimos al régimen jurídico de los actos administrativos del Banco de la República; entendiendo por derecho económico el derecho de la intervención del Estado en la economía, o como el derecho mixto que lo permea, tanto el derecho público como el derecho privado. Este tema tiene un enfoque interdisciplinar que vincula el derecho y la economía.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.086

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0060.029
Scholarly communication0.0120.006
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0050.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.441
Teacher spread0.397 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations2
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDos mil tres milSame topicComparative constitutional jurisprudence studiesFrench-language works237,207