A EDUCAÇÃO INCLUSIVA EM TEMPOS DE JUDICIALIZAÇÃO DO ESTADO: O COTIDIANO DAS ESCOLAS COM A LEI BRASILEIRA DE INCLUSÃO – Nº 13.146/2015
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
DOI: 10.12957/polemica.2017.28294 __________ Este artigo pretende analisar o cotidiano das escolas após a implementação da Lei Brasileira de Inclusão, a Lei nº 13.146/2015. É possível observar no documento orientações sobre os critérios de avaliação do aluno com deficiência, orientações sobre matrícula nas redes de ensino e alterações de direitos civis. O tema mais nevrálgico da lei no cenário educacional e recorde de ajuizamento de processos foi, por parte das instituições privadas e ainda tem sido por parte das famílias, a mediação escolar. Há avanços, retrocessos e pontos obscuros no campo da educação com a nova lei, sendo necessário que se faça a análise de sua aplicação nas escolas um ano depois de ter sido instituída e quatro meses após o prazo que as escolas receberam para se adaptar aos novos parâmetros. Palavras-chave: Legislação. Inclusão. Mediação. __________ Abstract: This article intends to analyze the daily life of schools after the implementation of the Brazilian Inclusion Law, the Law nº 13146/2015. It is possible to notice in the document: guidelines on the evaluation criteria of students with disabilities, guidelines on how to enroll for education networks and changes of the civil rights. In the educational setting, the most important issue of the law and a record of filing lawsuits has been the school mediation; not only by private institutions but also by families. There have been advances, setbacks and unclear points in the field of education with the new law, which requires an analysis of its application in schools a year after it was established and four months after the deadline schools received to adapt to the new parameters. Keywords: Legislation. Inclusion. Mediation.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it