MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385379756 · doi:10.1093/sp/jxad019

Symbolic and Transformative: Alignments Toward <i>Feminicídio</i> Legal Reform inside the Brazilian Police

2023· article· en· W4385379756 on OpenAlexaff
Roberta Silveira Pamplona

Bibliographic record

VenueSocial Politics International Studies in Gender State & Society · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolicing Practices and Perceptions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransformative learningState (computer science)FeminismLaw enforcementPolitical scienceSociologyLegitimationLawCriminologyGender studiesPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Feminism travels unevenly through state structures, and the state’s incorporation of feminist ideas remains controversial within feminist movements. This study uses the Brazilian Feminicídio Law, which increases punishment for gender-based homicides, as a case study to ask how law enforcement actors adopt a feminist legal reform. Data come from one year of in-depth fieldwork across police stations in a major Brazilian city and from newspaper articles. I show that state actors accept the feminist legal frame based on previous understandings of police practices. However, institutional divisions led them to develop different alignments toward the new legal reform. While police officers from the homicide division symbolically align toward feminicídio and do not aim to change police practices, officers from the women’s division perceive feminicídio as an opportunity to claim significant changes in police practices, revealing a transformative alignment. Struggles over legitimation and diverging professional beliefs and interests explain the two distinct responses.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.080

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0110.027
Scholarly communication0.0070.003
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.158
GPT teacher head0.455
Teacher spread0.297 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSocial Politics International Studies in Gender State & SocietySame topicPolicing Practices and PerceptionsFrench-language works237,207