Former au Brésil un artiste-pédagogue-chercheur : un exercice complexe
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’article se propose d’examiner comment l’Université de São Paulo s’efforce de répondre aux défis actuels posés par la formation de formateurs dans les arts de la scène, aussi bien dans l’univers scolaire que dans la sphère de l’action culturelle et artistique. Nous partons du principe que de profondes mutations traversent la scène contemporaine – dilution des frontières entre les arts, présence de la dimension performative, usage de matériaux variés comme point de départ des processus de création, entre autres –, révélant de nouveaux besoins et ouvrant de nouvelles perspectives pour la formation de ces professionnels. L’importance d’une expérience artistique forte, la compréhension du rôle de la recherche, la réalisation d’une praxis qui puisse dépasser la dichotomie entre théorie et pratique sont invoquées comme des aspects particulièrement prometteurs dans cette formation professionnelle. On reconnaît aussi dans quelle mesure les recherches des artistes contemporains contribuent à la reformulation des principes directeurs relatifs aux interventions de formation.
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 | 0.016 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.032 | 0.057 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| 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".