MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402815866 · doi:10.48143/rdai.27.rossi

Comitê de resolução de disputas: referências de utilização no Brasil

2023· article· pt· W4402815866 on OpenAlexaff
Alina de Toledo Rossi, Karen Cristina Moron Betti Mendes

Bibliographic record

VenueRDAI | Revista de Direito Administrativo e Infraestrutura · 2023
Typearticle
Languagept
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicBrazilian Legal Issues
Canadian institutionsAthabasca University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Para cada conflito existe uma solução mais adequada. Além das formas autocompositivas já consagradas no ordenamento jurídico brasileiro, como a mediação e a conciliação, e a arbitragem como forma de solução adjudicada, outras formas podem ser utilizadas na prevenção e resolução de conflitos. O presente trabalho objetiva apresentar o Comitê de Resolução de Disputas, Comitê de Especialista ou Dispute Resolution Board como forma eficaz na prevenção e resolução de conflito, além de demonstrar que o instituto já vem sendo utilizado no Brasil com resultados positivos.

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 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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.365
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.002

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.316 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRDAI | Revista de Direito Administrativo e InfraestruturaSame topicBrazilian Legal IssuesFrench-language works237,207