Colaboração premiada frente ao populismo judiciário
Bibliographic record
Abstract
O presente artigo analisou o instituto da colaboração premiada e sua aplicação no combate ao crime organizado, demonstrando que as garantias individuais e os direitos constitucionais são mitigados para a eficácia da delação premiada no combate ao crime organizado. Para tanto, utilizou-se o método indutivo com caráter expositivo, em que apontou casos envolvendo o paradoxo entre a voluntariedade, requisito indispensável nas colaborações premiadas, e as prisões preventivas decretadas e cumpridas previamente ao acordo. Além disso, foram trazidos alguns apontamentos do Supremo Tribunal Federal e da Procuradoria Geral da República acerca da colaboração premiada e examinado o contexto histórico e político da implementação do instituto, demonstrando a evolução e o comparativo com o Direito Norte Americano e Italiano na utilização da colaboração premiada. Com isso, concluiu-se que a excessiva publicização dos atos judiciais e a relativização das garantias individuais e direitos constitucionais, o instituto da colaboração premiada acaba deturpado, sendo, portanto, o processo midiático juntamente com as delações premiadas o sustentáculo das investigações criminais.
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 | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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.
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".