DIREITO FUNDAMENTAL À SAÚDE: A LIBERDADE DE ESCOLHA DO TRATAMENTO POR MEIO DO USO DE CANABIDIOL
Bibliographic record
Abstract
El presente estudio tuvo como objetivo analizar el concepto del derecho fundamental a la salud enel sistema legal brasileno y en que medida una persona puede ejercer su derecho general a lalibertad de elegir un tratamiento apropiado para su diagnostico, ya sea que este en la lista demedidas tipicas o no, desde un enfoque deductivo con interpretacion sistematica. Ademas, el temadel acceso a la justicia se abordo precisamente para verificar el grado de interferencia del poderjudicial para ayudar a las personas a obtener permiso para obtener un tratamiento efectivo. Coneste fin, analizamos los casos de la Corte Suprema de Estados Unidos y Canada con el fin deobservar como se acepta el uso de Cannabidiol en el derecho extranjero, y, trayendo a laperspectiva brasilena, la sentencia del STJ bajo la Apelacion Especial No. 1,657,075. - Se abordola EP cuando se admitio la importacion de la sustancia de Cannabidiol para su uso en el tratamientomedico de un paciente con un caso incurable de epilepsia.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".