Dimensões Institucionais da Igualdade de Gênero: o Caso Maria da Penha / Institutional Dimensions of Gender Equality: the Maria da Penha Case
Bibliographic record
Abstract
DOI: 10.1590/2179- 8966/2021/56463. Resumo Este artigo explora a complexa interacao entre a letra da Lei Maria da Penha (Lei 11.340/2006) e o contexto institucional no qual ela funciona. Apos detalhar as mudancas institucionais introduzidas pela lei, analisamos as medidas adotadas pelo governo brasileiro para implementar reformas, apontando inumeras deficiencias. Ademais, mostramos que os tribunais brasileiros nao tem reconhecido a importância das instituicoes previstas na lei. Concluimos o artigo propondo um caminho alternativo, denominado modularidade: rejeitamos a ideia de que mudancas legais e institucionais operam de forma hierarquica ou independente, em prol do entendimento de que a Lei e as instituicoes podem se complementar ou compensar mutuamente os seus pontos fracos. Palavras-chave: Lei Maria da Penha; Instituicoes; Modularidade. Abstract This article explores the complex interaction between the Maria da Penha Statute (Law 11.340/06) and the institutional context in which such statute operates. After presenting the details of the institutional changes provided by the Statute, we analyse the measures adopted by the Brazilian Government to implement reforms, identifying a number of shortcomings. We also show that the Brazilian courts have neglected the role of institutions as prescribed by the Maria da Penha Statute. We conclude the article by presenting an alternative path called modularity: we reject the idea that law and institutions have either a hierarchical relationship or are independent of one another; instead, we suggest that they can be complementary or may compensate for each other weaknesses. Keywords: Maria da Penha Statute; Institutions; Modularity.
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 | 0.010 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".