Considerações metodológicas para a pesquisa em arte no meio acadêmico
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tradução/Translation: Marília C.G. Carneiro and Déborah Maia de LimaRevisão/Proofreading: Mônica Fagundes DantasNeste artigo focalizamos três caminhos possíveis para o desenvolvimento de teses no Doutorado em Estudos e Práticas Artísticas da Universidade de Quebec em Montreal (UQAM): tese-pesquisa, tese-intervenção e tese-criação. O modelo para a pesquisa em artes é organizado em torno de três tradições filosóficas que se traduzem em três tipos de pesquisa etnográfica (tomada num sentido amplo): 1 - etnografia interpretativa, focada na descrição e na compreensão da situação; 2 – etnografia crítica, que vê a realidade mascarada por um conjunto de estruturas sociais e políticas que envolvem relações de dominação; 3 - etnografia pós-moderna. Esta classificação pode ser útil para pesquisadores em arte envolvidos tanto com teses teóricas quanto práticas.
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 | 0.034 | 0.056 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.052 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.034 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
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".