Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines Brazil’s project of incarceration through the figure of evasion (evasão)—the act of escaping prison custody, often temporarily. Evasion traces a path across the borders of captivity and freedom, as people routinely flee confinement, only to return of their own accord. I position both prisons and evasion as part of an ongoing history of, and tension between, Black fugitive life and emancipation in Brazil and the Americas. I argue that while evasion offers no clear exit from the punitive edge of the law, it produces another mode of inhabiting the time and territory of incarceration. With a focus on two incarcerated Black travestis, I outline some of these evasive movements and demonstrate the fault lines that they reveal—both within the prison system’s own claims to legitimacy and in the concepts that we bring to bear on incarceration. RESUMO O presente artigo examina o projeto brasileiro de encarceramento através da figura da evasão: o ato, muitas vezes temporário, de fugir da custódia penal. A evasão traça um caminho que atravessa as fronteiras entre a prisão e a liberdade, visto que as pessoas fogem frequentemente, voltando depois por vontade própria. Situo presídios e evasão como partes de uma história contínua e uma tensão entre vida negra em fuga e emancipação no Brasil e na América. Constato que, embora a evasão não ofereça saída do fio punitivo da lei, produz outro modo de habitar o tempo e o território do encarceramento. Focando em duas travestis negras presas, delineio alguns desses movimentos evasivos e demonstro as linhas de falha que elas revelam—tanto dentro das pretensões de legitimidade do sistema penal, como dos conceitos a que recorremos para analisar o encarceramento.
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 | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.078 | 0.023 |
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".