Procedimentos administrativos extrajudiciais do Ministério Público: estudo comparado entre as experiências no Brasil e Canadá para proteção de grupos vulneráveis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Brazilian Amazon Region serves as the backdrop for an enduring model of development and occupation, leading to ongoing conflicts between various social and economic actors. The State of Pará's Public Prosecutor's Office (MP) emerges as a driver of public policies, collaborating with diverse state and non-state entities. Utilizing both judicial and extrajudicial tools, the MP resolves conflicts among stakeholders, including transnational corporations and traditional populations. This dissertation explores the historical context of Amazonian development, highlighting the impact of major projects on vulnerable communities. It also examines the MP's role in defending human rights, its interactions with other oversight bodies, and implications for integrity and compliance, emphasizing the extrajudicial aspect in rights protection. The study analyzes MP procedural norms, revealing structural challenges, inefficiencies in oversight bodies, and a workload burden, posing challenges to fulfilling its constitutional mission. Employing a documentary method, the research identifies the Amazon Region as a hub for significant economic projects, often led by transnational corporations. A regulatory gap exists for holding these entities accountable in their home countries for rights violations in the areas of operation, impacting the efficacy of the Brazilian MP. The research concludes by engaging in a comparative legal dialogue between Brazil and Canada, focusing on MP models and rights protection entities. Differences between the two countries are highlighted, exploring potential consequences for safeguarding vulnerable populations, particularly in holding Canadian extractive transnational corporations accountable beyond their domestic borders, such as in the Amazon Region
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 | 0.009 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".