Caso Airton Honorato e outros vs. Brasil
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Esta pesquisa refere-se ao parecer apresentado pelo Grupo de Estudos e Pesquisa em Direito Internacional (GEPDI), vinculado à Universidade Federal de Uberlândia, perante a Corte Interamericana de Direitos Humanos, na condição de amicus curiae, com fundamento no artigo 44(3) do Regulamento da Corte, no caso Airton Honorato e outros vs. Brasil. Quanto à metodologia, trata-se de uma pesquisa descritiva que, por meio da abordagem quali-quantitativa, logrou demonstrar que o caso deve ser julgado procedente, sendo o Estado brasileiro responsabilizado internacionalmente pela violação dos artigos 1(1), 4, 8(1) e 25 da Convenção Americana de Direitos Humanos haja vista a sua conduta ativa e omissiva em relação ao Sr. José Airton Honorato e os outros 11 informantes
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.008 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".