Secondary Education under Tension between Democratization and Modernization: Reflections from the Brazilian Experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper analyzes the extension of the right to secondary education in Brazil. Currently, the debate on secondary education has been intensified in civil society highlighting the problem of the reason of its precarious offer, not to mention a significant proportion of young people and adults who have not finished this level of schooling. Opinions vary on how the offer to secondary education should be held: while a minority believes that schooling should be humanistic and scientific; others support integrated education with a technical certification. Others advocate the separation of secondary professional education. This myriad of projects and programs has invaded the educational systems and schools, a portrait of public action in the education area, divided between republicans and private interests, in the context of disputes between the process of democratization and modernization, guided by the excellence of the performance of the institutions and students. This paper has an essay character produced within the research ‘Innovative High School Program: working conditions and teacher education’ with CNPq funding and during the post-doctoral studies conducted at the École Normale Supèrieure de Lyon/France, with CAPES financial support.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".