Intersecções entre o Eficientismo Processual Penal e o Neoliberalismo
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article aims to address the meta-legal relations between the management of the speed of the criminal process and the social constraints arising from neoliberal reason. To this end, it is based on the premise established by Foucault and deepened by Dardot and Laval that neoliberalism has become socially rooted to the point of transmuting from a simple economic model to a rationality that spreads to the most diverse social fields. The work is guided by the question: are there harmful effects beyond the loss of quality in the motivation of decisions with the adoption of efficiency logic by the criminal judge? The objective is to verify whether the management principles of this reason may be harmful to the proper functioning of the criminal process. This is an exploratory, interdisciplinary research, based exclusively on bibliographical references. The conclusion is that there are no conditions for intensifying the pace of the criminal process without a loss of quality that is not only technical, but also democratic, since acceleration without other measures ends up catalyzing authoritarian clots that have never been completely expunged from the Brazilian system of criminal procedure.
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 | 0.014 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.034 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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".