Enteógenos e Inteligência Existencial: Plantas Mestres como Instrumentos Cognitivos
Bibliographic record
Abstract
DOI: 10.12957/periferia.2011.3946 A partir de recentes mudanças nas legislações em relação às drogas em diferentes países, investiguei o potencial dos enteógenos (i.e., plantas psicoativas usadas como sacramentos espirituais) como instrumentos para favorecer a inteligência existencial. Plantas Mestres das Américas como a ayahuasca, os cogumelos de psilocibina, o peiote e o soma indo-ariano da Eurásia, são alguns dos exemplos de enteógenos que foram e continuam a ser utilizados, no passado e no presente. Todas estas plantas foram reverenciadas por pessoas e culturas diferentes como instrumentos cognitivos que promovem um mais rico entendimento cosmológico do mundo. Utilizo a teoria das múltiplas inteligências revisada por Gardner (1999) e sua formulação de uma inteligência “existencial” como uma lente teórica através da qual se deve considerar as possibilidades cognitivas dos enteógenos e explorar potenciais caminhos na Educação.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.001 |
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".