MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389798889 · doi:10.1590/2179-8966/2022/66510i

Strategies of constitutional erosion in Brazil: “bolsonarismo” and the de-constitution by legal and administrative means

2023· article· en· W4389798889 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueRevista Direito e Práxis · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicBrazilian Legal Issues
Canadian institutionsPetro-Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConstitutionTransparency (behavior)BureaucracyLegislatureNegotiationPublic administrationGovernment (linguistics)Political scienceCivil societyLaw and economicsBusinessEconomicsLawPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The process of constitutional erosion happens in several countries around the world and, in many cases, involves changing or creating a new constitution. In Brazil the phenomenon has strengthened under the Bolsonaro government (2019-2022) with the use of the strategies of legislative unilateralism, with the use of infra-constitutional norms; modification of the administrative structure and attacks on bureaucracy; use of the budget as a form of negotiation and the emptying of certain areas, curtailment of spaces for civil society participation, and reduction of transparency and capture of control mechanisms. The categorization made in this paper is not exhaustive, and, as observed in recent years, it is bound to changes resulting from the learning about the effectiveness of such measures. Still, it provides an important panorama for understanding and opposing the process of destruction.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.951
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.005
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.324 · 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