A deutsche Nation e a razão tupiniquim: o pensamento vivo diante do conceito estéril
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Resumo: Este artigo é um exercício de leitura comparada dos textos Reden an die deutsche Nation, publicado por Johann Gottlieb Fichte, em Berlim, em 1808, e Crítica da razão tupiniquim, publicado por Roberto Gomes, em São Paulo, em 1977. Se, à primeira vista, os dois universos de discurso parecem tão distantes que dificilmente se vê o que os aproxima, parece haver contudo uma flama comum que os anima, na medida em que ambos buscam evitar o aprisionamento do espírito local nos grilhões de um universo simbólico que não é o seu. O objetivo deste estudo é explorar cada uma das obras, em seus respectivos contextos, a fim de delinear os aspectos dessa chama comum que as motiva; após a confrontação dos dois textos, far-se-á, como conclusão, um breve esboço dos possíveis ganhos dessa abordagem comparativa.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".