Juiz de garantias e o princípio da jurisdição imparcial à luz da teoria da dissonância cognitiva
Bibliographic record
Abstract
O presente trabalho analisa a necessidade de implementação da figura do juiz de garantias no ordenamento jurídico brasileiro. Busca demonstrar a incompatibilidade do processo penal vigente com a garantia constitucional da jurisdição imparcial, a partir do estudo do sistema acusatório e da contribuição da teoria da dissonância cognitiva. Para tanto, discorre sobre os sistemas processuais penais e o princípio da imparcialidade da jurisdição, e sobre esta sob a ótica da teoria da dissonância cognitiva, demonstrando como o contato inicial do julgador com a prova influencia na condução de todo o processo. Conclui que, para se alcançar um sistema acusatório-democrático e imparcial, é imprescindível a implementação do juiz de garantias. O trabalho se desenvolve a partir de metodologia bibliográfica, documental, qualitativa, exploratória e descritiva.
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 | 0.009 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".