Normas Internas e Internacionais para Participação Pública em Projetos de CCS / Internal and International Standards to Public Participation in CCS Projects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
O artigo propoe a apresentacao do item “participacao publica” nas regras regulatorias de CCS (Carbon Capture and Storage, aqui referentes ao Armazenamento Geologico de Carbono) existentes na Australia, Canada, Uniao Europeia, Reino Unido e Estados Unidos, paises com legislacoes sobre o assunto, e suas possiveis relacoes com a configuracao brasileira. A metodologia e qualitativa, com destaque para o direito comparado e baseada na revisao da literatura e na legislacao. A escolha dos paises se deve a existencia do item de pesquisa em analise em suas regras legais e / ou regulamentos. Dessa forma, pretende-se que o artigo sirva como literatura que propoe a adocao da participacao publica como importante item para futuras normas de CCS que possam ser aplicadas no Brasil. Palavras-chave : Direito Internacional Comparado. Participacao publica. Captura. Transporte e Armazenamento de Carbono. Marco Normativo Brasileiro. ABSTRACT The article proposes the presentation of the item “public participation” in the regulatory rules of CCS (Carbon Capture and Storage, here referring to Geological Carbon Storage) existing in Australia, Canada, European Union, United Kingdom, and the United States, countries with laws on the subject and its possible relations with the Brazilian configuration. The methodology is qualitative, with emphasis on comparative law and based on a review of the literature and legislation. The choice of countries is due to the existence of research item under analysis in legal rules and regulations. Thus, the article intends to serve as literature that proposes the adoption of public participation as an essential item for future CCS rules that can apply to Brazil. Keywords: International Comparative Law. Public participation. Carbon Capture. Transport, and Storage. Brazilian Normative Framework.
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 | 0.083 | 0.117 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".