MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

NATUREZA E COLETIVIDADE: O DIREITO NATURAL DE GROTIUS E AS QUESTÕES AMBIENTAIS CONTEMPORÂNEAS

2020· article· en· W3110263503 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sizinio Lucas Ferreira de Almeida

Bibliographic record

VenuePrometeus · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEnvironmental law and policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNatural lawNatural (archaeology)Monopolistic competitionPhilosophyLawHumanitiesEpistemologySociologyEnvironmental ethicsPolitical scienceGeographyEconomicsArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper will discuss the approximation of modern natural law in contemporary environmental discussions. To this end, the present text will contain two moments: we will first start from the theory of natural law elaborated by the Dutch philosopher and jurist Hugo Grotius. In his theory, Grotius argues that the seas and waters should be used collectively, as opposed to any monopolistic form. Following this, we will approach the theory of two contemporary authors, Canadian activist Maude Barlow and Indian philosopher Vandana Shiva. In their works, they criticize contemporary privatist intentions, allied to the defense of their collective use, with ethical principles that are close to natural law.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.889
Threshold uncertainty score0.595

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.316
Teacher spread0.297 · 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 teacher head, 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 venuePrometeusSame topicEnvironmental law and policyFrench-language works237,207