O papel da Teoria da Objetivação na estruturação de uma investigação histórica em torno da obra Ex Ludis Rerum Mathematicarum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
O objetivo do artigo é discutir o papel da Teoria da Objetivação na estruturação de uma investigação histórica em torno da obra Ex Ludis Rerum Mathematicarum, escrita pelo italiano Leon Battista Alberti em 1450. Usando a Teoria da Objetivação como quadro teórico e conceitual, o objetivo geral da pesquisa foi analisar o modo pelo qual a dialética entre a obra Ex Ludis Rerum Mathematicarum e o contexto social, histórico e cultural de sua produção é colocada em funcionamento, isto é, analisar o modo pelo qual a obra matemática emerge e, ao mesmo tempo, reproduz e afirma ideologicamente o contexto social, histórico e cultural de sua produção. Para tanto, são destacados os conceitos e pressupostos dessa teoria utilizados na definição dos elementos estruturantes da investigação: problema de pesquisa, objeto de estudo, questão de pesquisa, objetivo geral e tese defendida.
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 | 0.013 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.039 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".