MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Por que uma Zona de Investigações Poéticas?

2021· article· pt· W3159158139 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueQuaestio revista de estudos em educação · 2021
Typearticle
Languagept
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicArts and Performance Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophyArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Neste ensaio procuramos responder à pergunta “Por que uma Zona de Investigações Poéticas (ZIP)?”, situando-a no contexto político-educacional de nosso país. Trazemos a noção de Zona Autônoma Temporária anunciada por Hakim Bey, compreendendo a poética como um modo de fazer e a política uma forma de viver-junto. Apresentamos a figura da amizade pelo viés pré-individual, não limitando-a à relação entre sujeitos ou às imagens unitárias de Ego e Grupo. Com Agamben e Ortega pensamos a amizade enquanto experiência poética e política, em que os sujeitos são vaporizados de seus lugares de intimidade, forjados e forçados a outras configurações na relação com o mundo e sob circuitos de afetos diversos. Com Dardot e Laval trazemos a noção de cosmocapitalismo como força colonizadora do inconsciente acadêmico, através do que Bordieu chama de homo academicus. Para além de um Grupo de Pesquisa, a ZIP é defendida como território a ser cartografado e como fantasia de convivência.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.626
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.043
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.245 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it