Idades da vida, infância e a racionalidade médico-higiênica em Portugal e no Brasil (séculos 17-19)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Analisa os efeitos que a racionalidade médico-higiênica produziu no modo de compreender a vida e sua cronologia, com ênfase ao debate a respeito da infância. Para tanto, procura observar zonas de semelhança na circulação dessas representações em Portugal e no Brasil, ao longo dos séculos 17, 18 e 19. Assim permite pensar a produção de uma doutrina difundida internacionalmente, sob o manto da crença em uma razão redentora, que impacta de modo particular as diferentes instituições que são criadas para lidar de modo especializado com cada etapa da vida. Dentre elas, as formas escolares. Palavras-chave: história da educação; história da infância; higiene. Abstract In this article, we analyze effects that the medical-hygienical rationality produced in the way we comprehend life and its chronology, with emphasis on the debate regarding infancy. Therefore, we tried to observe zones of similarity in the circulation of these representations in Portugal and Brazil, during the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries. This study allows to think the production of a doctrine spread out internationally, under the mantle of the belief in a redeeming reason, that impacts, in particular, the different institutions that are created to deal with a specialized way with each stage of life. Amongst them, the schooling forms. Keywords: history of education; history of infancy; hygiene.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".