Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Slam poetry is a form of performance poetry created by Marc Kelly Smith in Chicago during the 1980s. Since then, slam has spread throughout many locations in the world. According to its precursor, this type of poetry is based on five main elements: poetry, performance, competition, interaction and community. In their speeches, there seems to be a special affection of poets for themes regarding the social and the political. Nevertheless, political theory has ignored slam poetry in its corpus of studies. Slam has been most studied in the education field, since its utilization in schools has been observed in many countries. Based on this, the current study had two main aims. First, slam poetry was inserted in the political theory field. In this sense, slam was considered a manifestation of an emotional community fighting for a radical and plural democracy. Secondly, the research analyzed the expansion of slams from open spaces of public access to the institutional environments of formal education. Two distinct situations of institutionalization were observed: the slam brought to schools by teachers, students and slammasters; and the slam used by the State Government’s Education Secretariat as a mean to promote a specific educational policy. This study tried to comprehend the transformations of the political potential of slam poetry when transposed to these different environments. The research was based on documental analysis, participant observation in 14 slam events, and interviews with 25 people who are differently involved in the slam movement in the Espírito Santo State (Brazil) and in the Province of Québec (Canada). The results indicate that when slam poetry is taken to schools in the Espírito Santo State, it is done with an expectation that it will be able to replicate its critical performances and its democratizing potential. However, in the events of the State Government’s Education Secrateriat, slam poetry was used with the specific intent of advertising an educational policy. Consequently, in this last case some fundamental liberties of slam poetry were harmed and its status of critical art was jeopardized.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».