MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

O DIREITO AO MÍNIMO EXISTENCIAL À LUZ DA DIGNIDADE DA PESSOA HUMANA

2024· article· pt· W4401420611 on OpenAlexaff
Mônica Gonçalves de Oliveira

Bibliographic record

VenueRevista Foco · 2024
Typearticle
Languagept
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicBrazilian Legal Issues
Canadian institutionsAdidas (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhilosophyHumanities

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

O presente trabalho visa analisar o direito ao mínimo existencial a partir dos preceitos estabelecidos na Constituição Federal de 1988, em especial, a dignidade da pessoa humana. Além disso, elenca a normativa internacional, da qual o Brasil é signatário, que apresenta os parâmetros a serem considerados ao se interpretar o conceito do direito ao mínimo existencial e sua aplicação prática. Nesse sentido, avalia-se a legislação brasileira bem como a implementação de políticas públicas que visam dar efetividade ao referido direito. Conclui-se o estudo com os apontamentos acerca da adequação das medidas adotadas pelo Estado brasileiro e se estas se compatibilizam com a ideia do mínimo existencial à luz da dignidade da pessoa humana.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.084
Threshold uncertainty score0.166

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0050.005
Scholarly communication0.0060.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.307 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevista FocoSame topicBrazilian Legal IssuesFrench-language works237,207