INFORMAÇÃO PARA E PELOS SURDOS: SOBRE TRANSMISSÃO AUDIOVISUAL EM LIBRAS E DESENVOLVIMENTO DA CRITICIDADE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Resumo: Cerca de 5% da população brasileira possui algum grau de perda de audição (IBGE, 2010). São dez milhões de brasileiros com dificuldades de acesso às informações sobre as realidades de seu país e do mundo, ao conhecimento sistematizado pelas ciências etc. Alguns programas audiovisuais recorrem a legendas em Português e/ou intérpretes da Língua Brasileira de Sinais – Libras, atuando nas chamadas “janelinhas”, sendo exceção os produzidos por profissionais surdos e apresentados por eles em primeiro plano na tela. Sob tal contexto de discussão, e partindo da premissa da formação humana ao longo da vida, este artigo apresenta uma problematização acerca das diferenças entre a transmissão de informações por surdos e por intérpretes a partir de pesquisa bibliográfica. O trabalho sugere que uma informação transmitida de surdo para surdo, em audiovisuais, estaria mais próxima ao conteúdo original da mensagem e ao universo linguístico e cultural das comunidades Surdas. Também expõe uma reflexão sobre a necessidade de ampliação do repertório informacional para o desenvolvimento (permanente) da consciência crítica (FREIRE, 1979) pelos surdos que anseiam “ser mais”.Palavras-chave: Surdez. Libras. Acesso à informação. Abstract: About 5% of the Brazilian population has some degree of hearing loss (IBGE, 2010). There are ten million Brazilians who have difficulty accessing information about the realities of their country and of the world, knowledge drawn up by the sciences, etc. Some audiovisual programs use Portuguese subtitles and/or Brazilian Sign Language interpreters (Libras) acting in their little "windows" as they are called, with the exception of those produced by deaf professionals and presented to them in the foreground of the screen. Under this context of discussion, and based on the premise of human lifelong training, this article presents an examination of the differences between the transmission of information by deaf people and by interpreters, based on bibliographic research. The paper points out that information transmitted from deaf to deaf in audiovisuals would be closer to the original content of the message, and to the linguistic and cultural universe of the deaf community. It also presents a reflection on the need to expand the informational repertoire for the (permanent) development of critical consciousness (FREIRE, 1979) by deaf people who yearn to "be more."Keywords: Deafness. Libras. Access to information.
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 | 0.008 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.002 |
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".