Reflexiones en Torno al Proceso Judicial por Infracciones Aduaneras en Uruguay
Bibliographic record
Abstract
El presente artículo pretende hacer foco en algunas cuestiones del proceso judicial por infracciones aduaneras en Uruguay, en particular, se reflexiona en torno al contenido del Derecho Aduanero y a las infracciones aduaneras. Se analiza el contenido, necesidad y finalidad del Proceso Aduanero por Infracciones Aduaneras editado por el Código Aduanero de la República Oriental del Uruguay. Asimismo, mediante un análisis de las características de su contenido, se proponen recalificaciones a su pretendida ubicación como Proceso Civil, reconociéndolo como Proceso “Aduanero”, y con ello, como una categoría dentro de los Procesos Sancionatorios. Se analiza el objeto del Proceso Aduanero y su vinculación con la pretensión, para determinar que el mismo se forma progresivamente hasta su fijación en la Demanda Acusación Fiscal. This paper focuses on some issues regarding the judicial process for customs offenses in Uruguay, particularly, it reflexes about the content of Customs Law and customs offenses. The content, necessity and purpose of the customs offenses judicial process ruled by the Uruguayan customs code are analyzed. Also, through the assessment of the characteristics of the process, rectifications to its pretended ubication like a civil process are proposed, re-qualifying it as the "customs" process, falling as a category within the sanctionatory process. There is also an analysis of the object of the process, assessing its relationship with the claim, in order to determine if the claim is progressively construed throughout the process until its final determination in the State's representative accusation.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
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.
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".