MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390708691 · doi:10.56083/rcv4n1-050

O DISCURSO CIENTÍFICO-TECNOLÓGICO E OS PROJETOS ARMAMENTISTAS EM GUARDIÕES DA GALÁXIA VOL.1: UMA ANÁLISE DISCURSIVA

2024· article· pt· W4390708691 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Nicaelle Viturino dos Santos de Jesus

Bibliographic record

VenueRevista Contemporânea · 2024
Typearticle
Languagept
FieldMedicine
TopicBiotechnology and Related Fields
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As grandes produções fílmicas têm ocupado um lugar que mescla magia, fantasia, sonho e investimentos e retornos financeiros exponenciais. De maneira mais específica, o cinema americano conquistou o mundo com sua magia e seu modelo empresarial que conjugou produção de filmes em grandes estúdios, sistema de distribuição e exibição. Nesse sentido, esse trabalho consiste em uma análise discursiva da materialidade fílmica Guardiões da Galáxia vol. 1 (2014), integrante das produções do Universo Cinematográfico Marvel (UCM), sob a direção de James Gunn. O objetivo do trabalho é analisar as relações de poder/saber, tendo em vista os discursos científico-tecnológicos e armamentistas perpassados na trama. A partir da seleção do filme, faremos recortes do todo discursivo, a fim de examinarmos as sequências discursivas. Nesses termos, a análise consiste em uma inter-relação entre o objeto em análise e uma base teórica. Esta última tem como aporte os postulados de Michel Foucault (2014, 2003, 2012, 2013), Gregolin (2004, 2007), Laval (2020), dentre outros. Para alcançarmos o objetivo proposto, buscaremos responder a seguinte questão orientadora: Qual a possível relação entre a película, o sistema capitalista e a racionalidade neoliberal?

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesResearch integrity, Insufficient 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.691
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0050.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.003

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.270 · 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevista ContemporâneaSame topicBiotechnology and Related FieldsFrench-language works237,207