Educação estética e a qualidade da educação X Neoliberalismo no Global Education Monitoring Report 2024/5 – uma análise crítica
Bibliographic record
Abstract
O presente artigo investiga criticamente como o relatório Global Education Monitoring Report (GEM Report 2024/5), produzido pela UNESCO, trata os temas da literatura, da biblioteca e da educação estética, observando nele fortes indícios do neoliberalismo. A pesquisa qualitativa parte de uma metodologia exploratória e comparativa do documento internacional. Os resultados apontam que: há menções às bibliotecas e à literatura apenas em seus papeis funcionais; a educação estética é algo plenamente ausente – o que revela uma ênfase tecnicista e gerencial da educação, fragilizando o ideal de uma formação plena; os indivíduos em posição de liderança são de tal modo colocados em situação de empoderamento que resvala para a responsabilização excessiva, tipicamente neoliberal. Apoiado em autores como Stephen Ball, Dardot e Laval, Peroni e Schiller, o artigo propõe uma análise crítica dos fundamentos e atores do GEM Report, seu financiamento e suas implicações para as políticas educacionais globais.
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 | 0.028 | 0.066 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".