Relações de consumo e o transporte aéreo: a posição do Supremo Tribunal Federal quanto às antinomias constitucionais
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this article is to analyze the decisions of the Federal Supreme Court, in the Extraordinary Appeal with Apeal 766.618/SP and Extraordinary Appeal 636.331/RJ, in which the Montreal Convention on International Air Transport was applied in detriment to the Code of Consumer Protection. It seeks to ascertain whether such decisions constitute a step forward or backward in consumer relations, since they entail a dense discussion as to which legislation to apply in the same situation to conflicting legal protections. In this way, deciding that an internationally known codex be placed first demonstrates just how relevant the discussion is in attempting to measure the constitutional values in question. The methodology chosen is the deductive and inductive using doctrinal and jurisprudential research.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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 it