El derecho a la protesta pacífica y la independencia del Poder Judicial: el papel de una judicatura independiente en un escenario pacífico de confrontación social desde la perspectiva de los derechos humanos
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article deals with the issue of the independence of the judiciary in a context of social dissent and its function as guarantor of the rule of law and the respect of human rights standards in a situation of peaceful social protest aiming to challenge the authority of the state. Accordingly, it has been explored the role that an independent judiciary must play in order to assure the prevalence of the international human rights standards accepted by a State over its own national legislation on that regard. Conceptualizing the phenomenon of social dissent entails to identify the groups, contexts and scope of this practice, as well as the actors who usually participate in the processes of its criminalization through the use of criminal law. Thus, special attention has been made to identify the standards that the judiciary must observe in order to prevent itself from becoming a tool aimed at hindering the internationally recognized human rights of the demonstrators and, at the same time, ensure the operation of a democratic State governed by the rule of law.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.040 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".