Combinando heterogeneidades em espaços globais de mobilização: os casos do fórum social mundial e globalsquare
Bibliographic record
Abstract
O presente artigo propõe desenhar uma antropologia da espacialidade com um olhar crítico para compreender a emergência de diferentes espaços globais de mobilização que se inscrevem em uma perspectiva altermundialista. Para tanto, realiza-se inicialmente, um retrato do contexto histórico que permitiu o surgimento desses espaços. Em seguida, são apresentadas e analisadas comparativamente as lógicas inerentes a cada um dos dois casos selecionados, que aparentam ser particularmente representativos na trajetória dos espaços globais de mobilização (o Fórum Social Mundial e o GlobalSquare). No final, busca-se trabalhar com a hipótese de uma "epistemologia do paradoxo", que seja capaz de reconhecer as contradições básicas próprias aos processos estudados e que contribua para a compreensão dos processos de mobilização, ampliando seu alcance e sua força.
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 | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".