A artificialidade da dicotomia entre teoria externa e teoria interna: a teoria externa é autossuficiente à solução de conflitos entre direitos fundamentais?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A ARTIFICIALIDADE DA DICOTOMIA ENTRE TEORIA EXTERNA E TEORIA INTERNA: A TEORIA EXTERNA E AUTOSSUFICIENTE A SOLUCAO DE CONFLITOS ENTRE DIREITOS FUNDAMENTAIS? Resumo: Este trabalho analisa criticamente a classificacao das posturas teoricas a respeito dos conflitos entre direitos fundamentais em teoria interna e teoria externa, geralmente propugnada por quem se considera adepto desta ultima corrente. Inicialmente, fixamos algumas premissas teoricas a respeito da dinâmica da elaboracao legislativa e da subsequente construcao de sentido normativo pelo aplicador do direito. Em seguida, examinamos os pressupostos e as consequencias gnoseologicas da classificacao criticada, indicando a impropriedade de se dividir a doutrina sob um unico rotulo, interno ou externo. Ao final, demonstramos que uma interpretacao que se pretenda alinhada a teoria externa e insuficiente para dar solucao a todos os conflitos entre direitos fundamentais. Palavras-chaves: Direitos fundamentais. Conflitos entre direitos. Interpretacao juridica. Teoria interna. Teoria externa. THE ARTIFICIALITY OF THE DICHOTOMY BETWEEN EXTERNAL AND INTERNAL THEORY: IS EXTERNAL THEORY SELF-SUFFICIENT TO SOLVING CONFLICTS BETWEEN FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS? Abstract: This paper analyzes the theoretical disputes between the internal and external theories of constitutional rights, which presumably represent two opposing views about how conflicts between constitutional rights are understood. First, I provide a theoretical perspective of the dynamics of legislative drafting and propose a semiotic approach to understanding how legal texts are interpreted and become legal norms. Then, I demonstrate that the epistemological distinction between the internal and external theories is not only imprecise but inadequate, in that it segregates stages of interpretation that are necessary to resolve certain conflicts between constitutional rights. Keywords: Constitutional rights. Conflicts between rights. Legal interpretation. Internal theory. External theory. Data da submissao: 26/02/2020 Data da aprovacao: 21/03/2020
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".