MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389848757 · doi:10.56083/rcv3n12-145

PROSELITISMO RELIGIOSO: LIBERDADE DE EXPRESSÃO OU UMA VIA DE PROPAGAÇÃO DO DISCURSO DE ÓDIO

2023· article· pt· W4389848757 on OpenAlexaff
Nilmara Alvarenga Silveira, Roberta Feitosa de Morais, Thalita Furtado Mascarenhas Lustosa, Jane Karla de Oliveira Santos

Bibliographic record

VenueRevista Contemporânea · 2023
Typearticle
Languagept
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligion and Society in Latin America
Canadian institutionsImpact
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Este artigo buscou analisar os limites entre o discurso de liberdade religiosa e o discurso de ódio, trazendo um panorama específico sobre o proselitismo religioso e a homofobia, explorando os impactos e implicações sociais dessa conexão, pontuando em seu último capítulo, um estudo de caso cuja repercussão transpôs a barreira nacional, dada a projeção trazida pela internet, protagonizado pelo pastor André Valadão, no qual se percebe que o discurso proselitista se reveste, por vezes, em liberdade de expressão, apesar de incitar ódio e discriminação. Para tanto, almejou-se, especificamente, estudar como a transmissão da crença que é praticada e difundida a fim de aumentar o número de adeptos pode transpor a barreira do que é legal e assegurado por lei, para influenciar e até mesmo contribuir para a manutenção de preconceitos e discriminação contra pessoas LGBTQIA+, transformando-se em discurso de ódio. No deslinde deste estudo, adotou-se o método dedutivo de pesquisa e as técnicas de revisão bibliográfica e de revisão documental.

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)0.006
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.012
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.001

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.302 · 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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevista ContemporâneaSame topicReligion and Society in Latin AmericaFrench-language works237,207