EJERCICIO DEL DERECHO DEL CIUDADANO A LA REVOCATORIA DEL PARLAMENTARIO
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mediante el presente artículo se hace conocer la teoría de revocatoria del mandato del miembro del Congreso de la República del Perú; por cuanto en muchos países del continente y del mundo, dicha institución democrática de revocatoria de autoridades elegidas de carácter nacional, no está instituida en sus constituciones, sin embargo frente a la crisis de la democracia representativa, es importante analizar e incluso hallar la viabilidad de la figura jurídica de revocatoria del mandato parlamentario, vía reforma del artículo 90° de la Constitución Política del Perú, en el sentido de que el mandato del Congresista es revocable; y una vez efectuada la reforma constitucional, el procedimiento de revocatoria del Parlamentario, debe adecuarse a los procedimientos de la revocatoria de los gobiernos regionales y locales, previsto en la Ley N° 23600. Para la presente investigación acudimos a la metodología cualitativo, es decir fue analítico, descriptivo y explicativo de teorías e instituciones jurídico – democrático que permiten identificar las características y la interpretación de alcances de la soberanía del pueblo, reconocidos por la normativa internacional sobre derechos humanos que el Estado Peruano es parte de dichos tratados.
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 | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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.
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".