Brazilian Supreme Court, judicial self-restraint, and educational policy: the homeschooling case (RE 888815)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: How do Brazilian Supreme Court Justices use the decision-making strategy of judicial self-restraint? Judicial self-restraint is a strategy whose fundamental premise sustain that, if possible, any Supreme Court should avoid ruling on constitutional issues, and resolve the cases before them on other (usually statutory) grounds to avoid the hard constitutional questions that would come with the other interpretation. When asked to decide on the constitutionality of homeschooling plans (RE888815), the Brazilian Supreme Court Justices entered a debate involving various aspects of the educational public policy cycle, moving away from the strictly constitutional issue. This research qualitatively analyzed this case, notably through content analysis tools, to verify how the judicial self-restraint strategy was used in the judgment of a relevant educational public policy issue.Keywords: Brazilian Supreme Court; educational policy; judicial review; judicial selfrestraint; homeschooling.Resumo: Como os Ministros do Supremo Tribunal Federal (STF) usam a estratégia de tomada de decisão denominada autorrestrição judicial? A autorrestrição judicial é uma estratégia cuja premissa fundamental sustenta que, se possível, qualquer Tribunal deve evitar se pronunciar sobre questões constitucionais e resolver os casos à sua frente por outros motivos (geralmente infraconstitucionais) para evitar as difíceis questões constitucionais que surgiriam com a outra interpretação. Quando solicitados a decidir sobre a constitucionalidade dos planos de educação domiciliar (RE888815), os Ministros do STF entraram em um debate envolvendo vários aspectos do ciclo das políticas públicas educacionais, afastando-se da questão estritamente constitucional. Esta pesquisa analisou qualitativamente este caso, principalmente por meio de ferramentas de análise de conteúdo, para verificar como a estratégia de autorrestrição judicial foi usada no julgamento de uma questão relevante de política pública educacional.Palavras-chave: Supremo Tribunal Federal; autorrestrição judicial; Educação domiciliar.
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 | 0.009 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| 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".