Agenda fiscal no Brasil pós 2016: reflexões sobre austeridade e veredas democráticas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
O presente artigo propoe algumas ponderacoes sobre como as opcoes reformistas, adotadas no Brasil apos 2016, operam como instrumentos de austeridade. As discussoes conceituais e historico-comparativas sao combinadas para melhor apreensao da logica, funcionamento e interesses atrelados a politica socioeconomica vigente. Tendo como escopo empirico questoes orcamentarias suscitadas pela Emenda Constitucional n.o 95/16, objetiva-se evidenciar que o impeto reformista consiste em um fenomeno sistemico que nao se restringe a reestruturacao economica. Para isto, opera-se uma revisao bibliografica, descritiva e essencialmente qualitativa, lastreada por um arcabouco teorico que se apoia nos argumentos de Streeck (2018), Cruz (2010), Dardot & Laval (2016), Chang (2004) e Neri (2019). As conclusoes demonstram que as reformas analisadas, apesar de ocorrerem em espacos democraticamente constituidos, sao marcadas pela assimetria de interesses que, ademais de nao viabilizarem o ajuste fiscal que propoem, mitigam as possibilidades do Estado operar como distribuidor de renda e promotor da inclusao social.
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 | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 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".