MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387028706 · doi:10.1590/1984-0411.86030

O campo acadêmico e a regulação métrica: autonomia, heteronomia e democracia - a ingerência economicista

2023· article· pt· W4387028706 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mário Luiz Neves de Azevedo

Bibliographic record

VenueEducar em Revista · 2023
Typearticle
Languagept
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation and Public Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBenchmarkingDemocracySociologyHumanitiesPolitical sciencePhilosophyPoliticsLawManagementEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

RESUMO Este artigo tem por objetivo analisar a governança baseada em indicadores e manuais de “boas práticas”, a chamada administração por benchmarking. Em tempos de “sociedade métrica” (MAU, 2019; SANTOS, 2019; MULLER, 2019), esse tipo de regulação, caracteristicamente economicista, vem afetando, inclusive, os campos acadêmico e da educação (BOURDIEU, 1996; LAVAL, 2020). Nesse sentido, argumenta-se que a regulação economicista, característica da administração por benchmarking, interfere na democracia (ROSANVALLON, 2007) e na autonomia dos campos sociais específicos. Dessa forma, para cumprir esses objetivos, metodologicamente, utiliza-se a teoria dos campos de Pierre Bourdieu.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.248
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.010

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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.303 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEducar em RevistaSame topicEducation and Public PolicyFrench-language works237,207