Popular Education, Hegemony, and Street Children in Brazil: Toward an Ethnographic Praxis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Achapter on street children may seem somewhat out-of-place in a work dedicated to “adult” education. Yet, as we hope to demonstrate, the phrase “adult education,” despite its grounding in a critical tradition, indirectly refers to hegemonic cultural constructions of “childhood” and “adulthood,” which in turn rely on dominant notions of “development.” Such notions are necessarily problematized when one examines the lived experience of those human beings who, by their very mode of being, shatter conventional notions on the relationship between age—and development, behavior, place, and agency. The adult-child binary that separates legal agency from passive adult-imposed supervision in most official political landscapes is also reflected in formal education systems, which, as Paulo Freire famously argued, construct child learners as voiceless recipients of adult knowledge and culture. Critical pedagogy, conversely, recognizes the role of learners as cultural producers, active coinvestigators, and whole beings, as opposed to incomplete beings-in-the-making (Freire, 2000). The fact that such a critical paradigm has prevailed in many adult education initiatives while being almost systematically absent from formal schooling or any project dealing with children, thus, is undeniably a reflection of that legal binary opposition in which “adults” only are recognized as the owners of their existence. These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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".