Posiciones sindicales y técnico-docentes en torno a las políticas de inclusión educativa en Uruguay
Bibliographic record
Abstract
En este trabajo se analizan las posiciones sindicales y técnico-docentes en torno a las políticas de inclusión educativa desarrolladas en educación secundaria en el contexto de los tres períodos de gobierno progresista en Uruguay (2005-2019). A partir de los aportes del Análisis Político de Discurso (APD) en el campo educativo, se aborda la categoría “posiciones sindicales y técnico-docentes” y se identifican las diferentes configuraciones discursivas sobre las políticas de inclusión educativa y su relación con la forma liceal. Metodológicamente, se trabaja desde un enfoque cualitativo a partir de entrevistas realizadas a referentes del ámbito sindical y técnico-docente. El análisis realizado permite analizar algunas de las disputas y tensiones inscriptas en las discusiones sobre las relaciones entre políticas de inclusión educativa y forma liceal, así como entre educación y procesos de desigualdad.
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 | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
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.
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".