Corte portuguesa e monarquia no Brasil. Obstáculos da centralização do estado e estratégias da advocacia provisionada / Portuguese court and monarchy in Brazil. Obstacles from the centralization of the state and strategies by non-graduate lawyers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
DOI: 10.1590/2179-8966/2020/52671 ResumoO principal objetivo deste trabalho consiste na investigação do significado da advocaciaprovisionada no Brasil durante o primeiro quartel do século XIX. Esta investigação levaráem conta os modos e mecanismos pelos quais os advogados provisionados serelacionavam entre si, se situavam nas relações ora com Estado ora com a sociedade e secolocavam na mediação entre um e outro. Procurando identificar obstáculos e estratégiasno exercício da advocacia, o conjunto destas relações será pesquisado com base na fontedocumental denominada “Pedidos de Licença Para Advogar”. Esta fonte documentalajudará também a descrever o modo como os advogados provisionados se viam, eramvistos e se constituíam como agentes da burocracia estatal.Palavras-chave: Monarquia brasileira; Centralização político-administrativa; Advogadosprovisionados.AbstractThe main objective of this work is to investigate the meaning of the practice of nongraduatelawyers in Brazil during the first quarter of the 19th century. This investigationwill take into account the ways and mechanisms by which non-graduate lawyers relatedto each other, were situated in relations with the State or with the Society and putthemselves in mediation between one and the other. Seeking to identify obstacles andstrategies in the work of non-graduate lawyers, the set of these relationships will beresearched based on the documentary source called “Applications for permission to be alawyer”. This documentary source will also help describe how non-graduate lawyersviewed themselves, were seen and constituted themselves as agents of the statebureaucracy.Keywords: Brazilian monarchy; Political-administrative centralization; Non-graduatelawyers.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".