MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3090070772 · doi:10.47712/rd.2019.v4i2.45

EJERCICIO DEL DERECHO DEL CIUDADANO A LA REVOCATORIA DEL PARLAMENTARIO

2019· article· es· W3090070772 on OpenAlex
Francisco Tipula Mamani

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueREVISTA DE DERECHO · 2019
Typearticle
Languagees
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicComparative constitutional jurisprudence studies
Canadian institutionsOptech (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical scienceDerechoPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.902
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.003

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.319 · 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