MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3212371879 · doi:10.47907/livro2020_02en

Compliance and Sustainability: Brazilian and Portuguese Perspectives

2020· book· en· W3212371879 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Alexandra Aragão, Grace Ladeira Garbaccio

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicRegulation and Compliance Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversité de LimogesUniversidade Federal do ParáUniversidade Federal de Santa CatarinaUniversidade de CoimbraUniversidade Federal de Minas GeraisConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e TecnológicoUniversité Laval
KeywordsCompliance (psychology)PortugueseSustainabilityPolitical scienceGeographyPsychologyPhilosophySocial psychologyLinguisticsEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Atlantic.These are common problems, and it is always inspiring to know that intervention experiences have been verified.The publication now coming to light allows a much larger number of interested people to access the valuable contributions presented at the Coimbra Seminar.Since the world beyond Brazil and Portugal has problems that concern and interest us all, this publication is being released not only in Portuguese but also in English to benefit a larger public with the knowledge of the contributions made.• C LÓV I S D E B A R RO S F I L H O rights, as prerogatives, never a de facto concept.Therefore, I do not have -nor do I intend to have -rights that no one else has, for example, the right to vote, to express myself freely, and to have a decent education, job opportunities, etc.The second implication is difference, respect for the other precisely for what otherness makes different from the selfyour own body, thoughts, beliefs, emotions, way of being.If we differ in religion, sexual orientation, and representations of the perceived or ideal world, there can still be respect.Therefore, respect for others demands that I recognize them as my equals in rights and also as different from me in existence.This implication represents both the deliberate and the succumbing parts of life.After all, no one else interacts with the world as each of us does, in choices, certainly, but also in the misfortunes of chance.Therefore, we are equal in rights -such as voting, preserving property and being married -but different in choices such as the choice of a party or a candidate, the choice to become the owner or to retain ownership of this or that, and the choice to marry this or that person.Equality in rights and difference in choice make us assume that ethics is unique to humans although many other species coexist all the time. Human specificityRousseau exemplified this concept in his Discourse on the Origin and Basis of Inequality among Men in 1755.Cats "do cat things", and pigeons "do pigeon stuff".They do not create, they do not innovate, they do not take risks, they do not improvise, and they do not choose or make decisions; they just live according to the inclinations and propensities dictated to them by nature.Now, humans are neither cats nor pigeons.The understanding of ethics is embedded in this realization.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score0.087

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.006
Science and technology studies0.0040.015
Scholarly communication0.0080.005
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.227 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRegulation and Compliance StudiesFrench-language works237,207