MONUMENTOS URBANOS E ARTE PÚBLICA: OS OBELISCOS EM ROTAÇÃO / Urban monuments and public art: the obelisks in rotation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Este ensaio aborda uma forma monumental antiga e muito disseminada no mundo – o obelisco e suas variações – para refletir sobre a importância desse artefato estético e sociocultural até o último século, quando passa a interagir com questões oriundas dos debates propostos pela “arte pública”. Considerando os usos históricos e contemporâneos dos monumentos verticais não figurativos, abordo algumas intervenções e instalações artísticas, focalizando monumentos públicos, para mapear as estratégias de subversão das formas e sentidos a eles atribuídos. Demonstro que certos monumentos são objeto de várias intervenções ao longo do tempo, enquanto algumas instalações artísticas se apresentam como contramonumentos em sintonia com os princípios de participação e debate público que animam os valores democráticos.Palavras-chave: Obelisco; Monumento público; Arte pública; Paisagem urbana; Contramonumento. AbstractThis essay discusses an ancient monumental form and very widespread in the world – the obelisk and its variations – to reflect on the importance of this aesthetic and sociocultural artifact until the last century, when it started to interact with issues arising from the debates proposed by the “public art”. Considering the historical and contemporary uses of vertical non-figurative monuments, I address some interventions and artistic installations focusing on public monuments to map the subversion of the forms and meanings canonically attributed to such artifacts. There are cases in which a monument is the object of several interventions over time, and others, complementary, in which the proposal is to constitute a counter-monument in line with the principles of participation and public debate that animate democratic societies. Keywords: Obelisk; Public monument; Public art; Urban landscape; Counter-monument.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".