THE BARRIERS IN ENSURING THE RIGHT TO HEALTH FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES IN BRAZIL DURING COVID-19
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Health is recognized as a fundamental human right in Brazil, under the 1988 Federal Constitution. It states that health is a right for all peoples and that the state must guarantee universal and equal access to services. In the face of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, access to healthcare and health services proves to be exceedingly difficult for Indigenous Peoples in Brazil. This paper explores the barriers in ensuring the right to health for Indigenous Peoples in Brazil during COVID-19. The paper is divided into four parts: Section 1 provides a summary of the Brazilian healthcare subsystem for Indigenous Peoples; Section 2 outlines the impact of COVID-19 on Indigenous Peoples in Brazil; Section 3 explores the barriers to ensuring the right to health for Indigenous Peoples in Brazil during COVID-19; and Section 4 analyzes the extent to which the new Law 14021/2020 of July 8, 2020, ensures the right to health for Indigenous Peoples in Brazil during COVID-19. This paper was written from a qualitative research, using as research techniques documental analysis and bibliographical review.
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 | 0.007 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".