MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4295046659 · doi:10.1590/2179-8966/2020/53808

Em busca de um paradigma: o debate escandinavo sobre a identidade da sociologia do direito

2022· article· pt· W4295046659 on OpenAlexaff
Lucas Pizzolatto Konzen, Roberta Silveira Pamplona

Bibliographic record

VenueRevista Direito e Práxis · 2022
Typearticle
Languagept
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLaw in Society and Culture
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhilosophySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Resumo Este trabalho analisa o debate entre Reza Banakar, Thomas Mathiesen e Håkan Hydén com foco em uma sequência de artigos publicados no periódico Retfærd: Nordisk juridisk tidsskrift entre 1998 e 2001. Escrevendo em um momento em que a realização de estudos sociojurídicos já era prática acadêmica rotineira na Escandinávia, eles propõem soluções bem diferentes para o problema da identidade da sociologia do direito. Assim, o debate escandinavo lança luzes sobre os elementos basilares que atualmente conformam o paradigma sociojurídico em contextos como o brasileiro.

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)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.130

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0170.075
Scholarly communication0.0240.020
Open science0.0030.009
Research integrity0.0090.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.279 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevista Direito e PráxisSame topicLaw in Society and CultureFrench-language works237,207