MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3081824045 · doi:10.22456/0104-6594.94438

O consumo na hipermodernidade: o superendividamento como consequência da oferta irresponsável do crédito

2020· article· pt· W3081824045 on OpenAlexaff
Dennis Verbicaro, Diego Fonseca Mascarenhas, Cristina Figueiredo Terezo Ribeiro

Bibliographic record

VenueRevista da Faculdade de Direito · 2020
Typearticle
Languagept
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHousing, Finance, and Neoliberalism
Canadian institutionsWSP (Canada)Discovery Air (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutonomyWelfare economicsNegotiationHappinessScope (computer science)HumanitiesConsumer demandPolitical scienceConsumption (sociology)EconomicsSociologyArtMicroeconomicsLawSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

RESUMOO artigo tem o objetivo analisar a relação entre hipermodernidade e consumo, com ênfase na oferta irresponsável do crédito e no superendividamento. Para tanto, por intermédio de estudo bibliográfico, analisa o problema do desenvolvimento da hipermodernidade com a busca da felicidade associada ao consumo na perspectiva de uma sociedade líquida, além de como a cultura do ter que estimula o superendividamento. Por fim, chega-se o entendimento de que o consumidor tem que ser um elemento protagonista nas relações de consumo com o escopo de garantir a autonomia da vontade no ato negocial.PALAVRAS-CHAVEHipermodernidade. Consumidor. Autonomia da Vontade. Superendividamento. ABSTRACTThe present article aims to analyze the connection between hypermodernity and consumption, with an emphasis on the irresponsible credit supply and over-indebtedness. Therefore, through a bibliographical study, it analyzes the problem of the development of hypermodernity with the search for happiness associated with consumption in the perspective of a liquid society, in addition to how the culture of “owning” stimulates super indebtedness. Finally, it arrives at the understanding that the consumer has to be a protagonist element in consumer relations with the scope of guaranteeing the autonomy of the will in the negotiating act.KEYWORDSHypermodernity. Consumer. Autonomy of Will. Over-indebtedness.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.008
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.000

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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.200 · 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevista da Faculdade de DireitoSame topicHousing, Finance, and NeoliberalismFrench-language works237,207