Poder Judicial como un (muy) mal regulador político: notas desde Brasil
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La regulación política es un área crucial del diseño democrático. Teniendo en cuenta el interés propio de los legisladores, el Poder Judicial parece ser un actor interesante para cumplir con los requisitos de imparcialidad para garantizar elecciones libres y justas. Utilizando la experiencia brasileña, muestro el papel del Poder Legislativo y las decisiones judiciales en tres campos principales (sistema de partidos, financiación de campañas y comunicación electoral) después de la redemocratización de 1988. El análisis evidencia el pésimo desempeño de la autoridad electoral judicial en la mejora de la competencia electoral. Debido a la peculiar conformación de la Justicia Electoral Brasileña, hay una concentración de las actividades de gobernanza electoral, y sus decisiones están blindadas (en la práctica) de la revisión judicial. En este escenario constitucional, la alternativa por el Poder Judicial es la decisión equivocada, y es mejor confiar en un Parlamento pluralista en la construcción de normas electorales.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".