O PROCESSO DE INCLUSÃO NO AMBIENTE ESCOLAR
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Neste estudo qualitativo realizado com 11 crianças e adolescentes migrantes latino-americanos estudantes da rede de educação básica da cidade do Rio de Janeiro, temos como objetivo entender como o grupo cria estratégias de inclusão no ambiente escolar. A partir disso, buscamos compreender as pistas mais amplas que essas estratégias podem oferecer sobre a experiência migratória dessa comunidade no Brasil. Inicialmente, debatemos a diferença entre incluir e integrar migrantes. Em seguida, propomos uma metodologia intercultural, não adultocêntrica e baseada na Psicologia Sócio-Histórica para a análise do fenômeno migratório. Finalmente, identificamos e discutimos três estratégias de inclusão mobilizadas pelos participantes na interação com seus pares, professores e, além disso, com o contexto social brasileiro: a demarcação da diferença, a tentativa de se diluir no grupo e a demanda por equidade. Essas estratégias nos dão indícios sobre primeiras impressões no Brasil, dificuldades de inclusão na escola e os desafios de aprender a língua portuguesa.
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 | 0.009 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".