MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Cartografia e Direito na Formação Territorial e na Configuração da Propriedade no Brasil

2020· article· en· W3117345444 on OpenAlexaff
Claúdia Robbi Sluter, Andréa Flávia Tenório Carneiro, Andrea Lopes Iescheck, Daniele Regina Pontes, José Antônio Peres Gediel

Bibliographic record

VenueRevista Brasileira de Cartografia · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicLand Rights and Reforms
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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 score0.896
Threshold uncertainty score0.720

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Citations3
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevista Brasileira de CartografiaSame topicLand Rights and ReformsFrench-language works237,207