BRINCADEIRAS INFANTIS NO ESTADO DE SÃO PAULO: UM ESTUDO DIATÓPICO E LÉXICO-SEMÂNTICO DE DENOMINAÇÕES PARA A “COBRA-CEGA” | CHILDREN S AMUSEMENT IN THE STATE OF SÃO PAULO: A DIATOPIC AND LEXICIAN-SEMANTIC STUDY OF DENOMINATIONS FOR COBRA-CEGA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Resumo: Este estudo analisa as denominações obtidas para a brincadeira em que uma criança, com os olhos vendados, tenta pegar as outras (COMITÊ NACIONAL DO PROJETO ALiB, 2001, p. 34), área semântica Jogos e Diversões Infantis. O universo da pesquisa compreendeu 188 inquéritos do Projeto ALiB realizados nas 37 localidades paulistas e 10 na área de controle, estas limítrofes à divisa estadual, com informantes selecionados segundo a metodologia do projeto ALiB. Para tanto, utilizaram-se os pressupostos da Dialetologia, da Lexicologia, da Semântica e da Etnolinguística, o que permitiu apurar que a variante cobra-cega foi a mais produtiva neste estudo, seguido por cabra-cega e que suas ocorrências se relacionam às características dos informantes e à história social das localidades em que foram documentadas. Abstract: This study analyzes the denominations learned from a play in which a child is blindfolded and tries to catch the others (COMITÊ NACIONAL..., 2001, p. 34), Semantic area Games and Children's Amusement. The research universe is composed of 188 surveys from the ALiB Project conducted in 37 places of São Paulo and 10 of the control area, bordering the state border, with selected informants according to an ALIB methodology. In order to do so, the assumptions of Dialectic, Lexicology, Semantics and Ethnolinguistics were used, which helped to estabilish the “cobra-cega” variant more productive in this study, followed for “cobra-cega” and that its occurrences are related to the characteristics of the informants and the social history of the places where they were documented. Keywords: Diaclectology; ALiB Project; Games and children’s amusement; Cobra-cega; São Paulo.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".