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
<p>Neste artigo, estudam-se as tensões e superposições entre desigualdade e diferença a partir de duas questões complementares: Quando diferenças se tornam politicamente relevantes? Como desigualdades e diferenças se correlacionam? O argumento é desenvolvido, primeiramente, mediante a discussão crítica de três abordagens influentes nos debates acadêmicos e políticos contemporâneos, a saber: o paradigma do reconhecimento-redistribuição, como é desenvolvido por N. Fraser e A. Honneth, a abordagem das desigualdades categoriais de C. Tilly e a abordagem das desigualdades horizontais-verticais de F. Stewart. A despeito de suas divergências, essas três abordagens apresentam uma limitação conceitual comum, que é tratar diferenças dinâmicas como categorias binárias e fixas: brancos-negros, homens-mulheres, mestiços-indígenas, etc. Para superar esse déficit, com base no conceito de articulação, desenvolve-se uma matriz analítica segundo a qual diferenças representam posicionalidades ou lugares de enunciação no âmbito de relações sociais hierárquicas. O nexo entre diferenças e desigualdades é ilustrado por meio da articulação recente dos quilombolas no Brasil.</p><p><strong>INEQUALITY, DIFFERENCE, ARTICULATION </strong></p><p>This article studies the tensions and overlaps between inequality and difference starting from two complementary questions: When do differences become politically relevant? How do inequalities and differences correlate? The argument is first developed through a critical discussion of three influential approaches in contemporary academic and political debates: the recognition-redistribution paradigm, as developed by N. Fraser and A. Honneth, the categorical inequalities approach of C. Tilly and the horizontal-vertical inequalities approach of F. Stewart. In spite of their divergences, these three approaches present a common conceptual limitation, which is to treat dynamic differences as binary and fixed categories: black-whites, menwomen, mestizos-indigenous, etc. To overcome this deficit, I develop in the present article, starting from the concept of articulation, an analytical matrix according to which differences represent positionalities or sites of enunciation within hierarchical social relations. The nexus between differences and inequalities is illustrated by the recent articulation of the quilombolas in Brazil.</p><p>Key words: Difference. Inequality. Articulation. Positionality. Quilombolas.</p><p><strong>INÉGALITÉ, DIFFÉRENCE, ARTICULATION </strong></p><p>Cet article étudie les tensions et les chevauchements entre inégalités et différences à partir de deux questions complémentaires: Quand les différences deviennent-elles politiquement pertinentes? Quel est la corrélation entre les inégalités et les différences? L’argument est d’abord développé à travers une discussion critique de trois approches influentes dans les débats académiques et politiques contemporains: le paradigme reconnaissanceredistribution, tel que développé par N. Fraser et A. Honneth, l’approche d’inégalité catégorielle de C. Tilly et l’approche des inégalités horizontaleverticale de F. Stewart. Malgré leurs divergences, ces trois approches présentent une limitation conceptuelle commune, qui consiste à traiter les différences dynamiques comme catégories binaires et fixes: blanc-noir, hommes-femmes, métis-indigènes, etc. Pour surmonter ce déficit, le présent article développe, à partir du concept d’articulation, une matrice analytique selon laquelle les différences représentent des positionalités ou des sites d’énonciation dans des relations sociales hiérarchisées. Le lien entre les différences et les inégalités est illustré par la récente articulation des quilombolas au Brésil.</p><p>Mots-clés: Différence. Inégalité. Articulation. Positionnalité. Quilombolas.</p>
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.009 |
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