MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Anísio Teixeira, a Leader of Brazilian Education: Why is His Legacy Ignored Today?

2022· article· en· W4311949498 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Naomar de Almeida Filho, Rosa Bruno‐Jofré

Bibliographic record

VenueEncounters in Theory and History of Education · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation Pedagogy and Practices
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoliticsSubject (documents)SociologyRelevance (law)Reading (process)Order (exchange)Political scienceEpistemologyLawPhilosophyLibrary science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The article discusses Aníseio Teixeira’s role in Brazilian education. It makes the point that conservative restorations impeded Teixeira’s innovations from taking root. This situation explains why his legacy was largely moved to oblivion. Of relevance here is the influence of John Dewey’s writings on Teixeira’s conceptions of education and his reading of Dewey’s theoretical and conceptual framework. The authors put emphasis on his understanding of university reform, his institutional experiment at the University of the Federal District and University of Brasilia. They further attempt to explain why his legacy is ignored today. The article goes to the “long 1960s” to refer to the historical conjuncture and the emergence of Paulo Freire’s pedagogy as an epistemological break that led to a reconstruction of the notion of political subject, becoming an inspiration to those envisioning a different social order. This left Teixeira in the historical background. Keywords: Anisio Teixeira, Brazilian education, John Dewey and Teixeira, University of the Federal District of Bahia, University of Brasilia, Paulo Freire, Darcy Ribeiro

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score0.087

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.007
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.321 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEncounters in Theory and History of EducationSame topicEducation Pedagogy and PracticesFrench-language works237,207