MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386220911 · doi:10.14393/ufu.di.2022.5340

Educação domiciliar no Brasil: Quem ganha, quem perde. Uma análise política e jurídica frente ao direito à educação

2022· dissertation· pt· W4386220911 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mardeli Mata

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languagept
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDiverse Education Studies and Reforms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical sciencePhilosophyHumanities

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study is carried out within the scope of the State, Policies and Management of Education Research Line and starts from the following questions: to what extent is homeschooling institution a right of choice for parents. Whose is the right to educate? Can school education be flexible? Who is interested in homeschooling? What are its theoretical bases and conceptions? In this sense, our general objective is to analyze the proposal of homeschooling in Brazil from the perspective of the right to education. As for our specific objectives, we seek to: understand the concept of public policies and its relationship with the neoliberal state and its influence on education; present the main public educational policies in Brazil, after the CF of 1988, trying to understand whether the institution of homeschooling, according to the intentions of the federal government, may or may not be legitimately considered as an educational policy; understand the right to education in Brazil as a social right based on the historicity of our Constitutions and its relationship with the school, highlighting the main infra-constitutional norms; identify the origin, concept, bases and theoretical conceptions of homeschooling, highlighting its theoretical foundations and presenting the law projects that are being processed in the National Congress for its institution, as well as the decision of the Federal Supreme Court handed down in the Extraordinary Appeal nº 888.815/LOL in which the possibility and constitutionality of homeschooling was discussed, seeking to understand whether or not compulsory schooling can be made more flexible. A bibliographic research was carried out from the authors Apple (2003), Azevedo (2004), Cury (2017; 2019), Saviani (2004; 2007, 2018, 2019), Laval (2019), among others, in addition to research and document analysis of the Brazilian Constitutions, the infraconstitutional legislation on education, the law projects and the decision of the STF. By using the results of this research, we aim to contribute to a broader knowledge of education, school and public educational policies, regarding the right to education, seeking a more in-depth study on homeschooling, origin and foundations to understand the real reason for the proposal of its institution by the federal government, which defends it as a public educational policy, in the name of the effectiveness of the right to education, but which carries out several actions following the neoliberal bias. It is essential to defend the school as an institution, the defense of the rights of children and adolescents to receive an education from a democratic perspective, forming citizens who are aware of their social role.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.157
Threshold uncertainty score0.313

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.005
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.326 · 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 designQualitative
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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicDiverse Education Studies and ReformsFrench-language works237,207