Em busca de um paradigma: o debate escandinavo sobre a identidade da sociologia do direito / In search of a paradigm: the Scandinavian debate on the identity of sociology of law
Bibliographic record
Abstract
DOI: 10.1590/2179-8966/2021/53808Resumo Este trabalho analisa o debate entre Reza Banakar, Thomas Mathiesen e Håkan Hydén com foco em uma sequência de artigos publicados no periódico Retfærd: Nordisk juridisk tidsskrift entre 1998 e 2001. Escrevendo em um momento em que a realização de estudos sociojurídicos já era prática acadêmica rotineira na Escandinávia, eles propõem soluções bem diferentes para o problema da identidade da sociologia do direito. Assim, o debate escandinavo lança luzes sobre os elementos basilares que atualmente conformam o paradigma sociojurídico em contextos como o brasileiro. Palavras-chave: Sociologia do direito; Escandinávia; Paradigma científico. Abstract This work analyzes the debate between Reza Banakar, Thomas Mathiesen and Håkan Hydén, focusing on a sequence of articles published in the journal Retfærd: Nordisk juridisk tidsskrift between 1998 and 2001. Writing at a time when conducting sociolegal studies already was a routinized academic practice, they propose quite different solutions to the problem of the identity of sociology of law. Thus, the Scandinavian debate sheds light on the ground elements that currently shape the sociolegal paradigm in contexts such as the Brazilian one. Keywords: Sociology of law; Scandinavia; Scientific paradigm.
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 | 0.018 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.062 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.028 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".