Modelos de IA interpretáveis para tomada de decisão judicial: além da explicabilidade em direção ao devido processo legal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As AI algorithms are employed to apply legal rules in determining rights and obligations, questions related to the observance of due legal process arise. The development of opaque machine learning models, whose predictions cannot be satisfactorily explained, has spurred debates around the idea of explainability of AI models for decision-making. The article argues that (i) in relation to AI models for judicial decision-making, the standard of explainability, besides proving insufficient to meet the requirements for publicity and reasoning of judicial decisions, imposes a form of nakedness not required of human judges; and (ii) a more appropriate standard would be that of interpretable models for judicial decision-making, characterized as able to offer decisions that are referred to current law (legality), internally and externally coherent (consistency), and compatible with the decision of a human judge in a similar case.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".