Biossegurança, biotecnologia e biodireito: uma análise de discurso
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Este trabalho aborda, através de análise de discurso, a respeito da positivação das questões que abarcam a biossegurança e a biotecnologia. Ela é embasada no arcabouço com espinha dorsal a dignidade da pessoa humana na seara dos Direitos Fundamentais consolidados nos preceitos da moral e da ética, no entrelace indissociável aos avanços técnico-científicos em concomitância à argumentação jurídica que regula tais pesquisas. O eixo norteador foi a Constituição da República Federativa do Brasil (CRFB/1988) e as Leis que regulam os avanços da biotecnologia. O ser humano é o ator principal a receber as benfeitorias oriundas dos avanços científicos e tecnológicos nas mais diferentes vertentes, de forma segura e que garanta melhores qualidades de vida à sociedade. Concluiu-se que o tecido social deve sempre ser priorizado pelas políticas públicas, sanitárias e ambientais com estratégias que lhe garantam o direito à saúde e o bem- estarismo e a sua integridade.
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 | 0.010 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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".