MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3019823743 · doi:10.7202/1068527ar

La culture juridique de la marginalisation : le système poreux du droit des favelas de Rio de Janeiro

2020· article· fr· W3019823743 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue générale de droit · 2020
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban Development and Societal Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cet article analyse la manière dont le droit de l’État promeut la ségrégation spatiale et comment fonctionne le système des droits dans le territoire ségrégué. L’objet de cette étude, ce sont les favelas de la ville de Rio de Janeiro au Brésil. Même si certaines favelas ont plus de 100 ans, l’illégalité et la précarité — temporelle et matérielle — sont encore considérées comme étant constitutives des favelas . L’absence de reconnaissance de cette zone s’étend à l’individu qui y réside : sa vie n’est pas validée ou alors elle l’est, mais accompagnée de contraintes. La favela est donc un espace dévalorisant et déprécié, dans lequel les résidants n’ont qu’une citoyenneté limitée. Le conflit entre les normes juridiques et le système interstitiel de droits dans les favelas montre bien que non seulement le droit n’est pas intéressé aux besoins des résidants des favelas (omission), mais encore exclut-il ceux-ci (action). En d’autres termes, la loi sert à construire et à perpétuer la marginalisation, y compris celle de l’espace physique de ces citoyens.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.485
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.229 · 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