Artes cênicas e interdisciplinaridade: o interartístico em questão
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Neste artigo, a autora faz uma distinção conceitual entre a interdisciplinaridade teórica e a interdisciplinaridade das práticas artísticas. Com efeito, existem duas maneiras de encarar a interdisciplinaridade: no âmbito dos saberes teóricos e da epistemologia, e do ponto de vista das práticas artísticas. A interdisciplinaridade, no sentido estrito, é um confronto de disciplinas constituídas, de metodologias e de teorias provenientes de horizontes epistemológicos diferentes. Por isso, importa diferenciar esta última do encontro de várias artes no interior da representação teatral ou da performance, que é da alçada do interartístico. A criação interartística, por sua vez, remete mais especificamente a processos de criação fundados em diálogos complexos entre diversas práticas que preservam a sua autonomia, o que deve, ainda, ser distinguido do fato de que a arte do teatro recorra a diferentes meios. A noção de interartístico busca, antes de tudo, designar a praxis, a qual — trata-se de uma hipótese — tenderia a se afastar do modelo de encenação.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.058 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.029 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".