Bibliographic record
Abstract
RESUMOO artigo discute o papel da música no trabalho, considerando a atividade musical como uma prática discursiva intersemiótica. Para ser capaz de examinar o tema tanto do ponto de vista da música quanto do trabalho, colocados juntos pelo discurso, a abordagem utilizada é interdisciplinar, composta por análise do discurso, etnomusicologia e ergologia. Primeiramente as fronteiras do conceito tradicional de cantos de trabalho são expandidas através da análise de dois exemplos pouco convencionais: uma peça publicitária e uma embalagem de produto. A partir desse viés expandido, o artigo explora cantos de duas comunidades brasileiras, da Bahia e do Maranhão, que cantam enquanto trabalham em atividades agrícolas e extrativistas. A conclusão ressalta que a relação entre música e trabalho ultrapassa em muito a abordagem estreita dos cantos de trabalho. Para compreendê-la, é preciso levar em conta as renormalizações postas em jogo e as comunidades discursivas implicadas por estas práticas discursivas complexas.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".