Os múltiplos papéis dos governos estaduais na política educacional brasileira: os casos do Ceará, Mato Grosso do Sul, São Paulo e Pará
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Resumo A literatura sobre federalismo aponta que a coordenação do governo federal tem papel central para garantir maior consistência às políticas sociais dos governos subnacionais. Este artigo buscou compreender o papel das relações intergovernamentais nas políticas municipais de educação. Apesar de a Constituição Federal determinar a colaboração entre os entes federados, há diferentes modelos de relacionamento entre estados e municípios na política educacional. Esta pesquisa comparou quatro estados - Ceará, Mato Grosso do Sul, São Paulo e Pará - com modelos distintos de relacionamento com o objetivo de identificar seus resultados nas políticas municipais. A análise de questionários e entrevistas semiestruturadas mostra que o tipo de cooperação tem implicações na capacidade institucional e financeira, na coordenação das políticas municipais e na implementação de políticas federais.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".