O conceito de duty of care em decisões paradigmáticas de cinco países: uma sistematização de suas condicionantes e limitações
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The concept of duty of care in judgements of five countries (England, Ireland, Australia, Canada and Holand) is utilized as a way to make transnationals enterprises responsible for human rights damages caused by their subsidiaries companies, in a processual maneuver to achieve reparation for the victims, since International Courts do not allow private entities to become parts in their litigation procedure. This research means to create a general concept for the instrument, with its limitations and requirements, through the observation of foreign judgments cited by the relevant literature, considering three main points: the facto control exercised by the parent company, the piercing of the corporate veil and the applicable jurisdiction. The main element of the concept of duty of care is the facto control, which can manifest itself in two ways: by a positive action directly over the possible damaging conduct of the subsidiary and by omission when the multinational enterprise has a conduction of superior knowledge and fails to advice the subsidiary in its actions. The facto control contains both the foreseeability of the damage and the relation of proximity between the parts. The duty of care can only be imposed when the facto control is present.
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 | 0.029 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.048 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".