A tutela jurisdicional do desenvolvimento sustentável na perspectiva do direito ambiental no Brasil, nos Estados Unidos e no Canadá (The Jurisdictional Protection of Sustainable Development from the Perspective of Environmental Law in Brazil, the United States and Canada)
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Portuguese Abstract: No argo e abordada, sob a oca do direito comparado, a legimida- de processual para a tutela do meio ambiente e a promocao do desenvol- vimento sustentavel. Sao invesgadas cienficamente, com um vies crico, doutrina e jurisprudencia sobre a materia nos Estados Unidos e no Canada. Constam no argo avaliacoes da recente jurisprudencia do Superior Tribunal de Jusca (STJ) e do Supremo Tribunal Federal (STF) sempre relacionadas com a doutrina e a legislacao de regencia que regula o meio ambiente e o desenvolvimento sustentavel no Brasil. English Abstract: The article addresses, from the perspective of comparative law, the procedural legitimacy for the protection of the environment and the promotion of sustainable development. It scientifically investigates, with a critical bias, the doctrine and doctrine and case law on the subject in the United States and Canada.The article includes evaluations of the recent jurisprudence of the Superior Court of of Justice (STJ) and the Federal Supreme Court (STF) always related to the doctrine and legislation that regulates the environment and sustainable development in Brazil.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it