Using Criminal Law to Fight Corruption: The Potential, Risks, and Limitations of Operation Car Wash (<i>Lava Jato</i>)
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The Brazilian case of Lava Jato started with a scandal involving the massive malfeasance of corporate and political elites in relation to the state-run oil company Petrobras. The scope of the corruption was unprecedented. Politicians and Petrobras employees received hundreds of millions (if not billions) of dollars in kickbacks between 2004 and 2012. This Article focuses on the innovations promoted by the Lava Jato case. This new jurisprudence has not only played a key role in breaking a long-lasting tradition of impunity in Brazil, but it has also generated much controversy. On the one hand, many Brazilian citizens welcomed the changes, as they allowed judges to overcome the obstacles faced by courts in previous corruption cases. On the other hand, opponents argue that the case is not solidly grounded in rule of law principles. Instead of taking sides in this debate, this Article tries to reframe it by arguing that there may be benefits associated with these novel interpretations, but there may also be costs and risks.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it