Cartografia e Direito na Formação Territorial e na Configuração da Propriedade no Brasil
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The dialogue between cartography and law allows us to discuss and evaluate the historical consequences of land demarcation, titling, and registration in Brazil. This dialogue between areas of knowledge guides the development of interdisciplinary research, seeking to recover, in their respective areas, the historical path of techniques and regulation. Therefore, the discussion and the questions formulated in this research are related to the need for integration between systematic topographic mapping and cadastre; to the lack of topographic mapping; to legal problems of demarcation and titling of public and private lands; and the diagnosis of the current situation concerning cadastre and its relationship with the systematic topographic mapping. Thereby, this paper presents the arguments with which we establish a research project whose primary goal is to understand the historical consequences of the lack of topographic mapping in land demarcation and registration in Brazil and its relationship with the current regulatory framework. The analysis shared among researchers of this group denotes absences and contradictions, which point to the need to search for common conceptual elements, problematizations, and questions in identifying and solving problems.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".