A história europeia se tornou a estória brasileira: pela coragem de caminharmos com nossas próprias pernas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
O presente trabalho tem por objetivo realizar uma leitura comparatista entre as reflexões de Silviano Santiago e Antonio Candido a partir de uma perspectiva teórica descolonial à luz da ideia de “formação da literatura brasileira” através do Arcadismo, do Romantismo e dos seus desdobramentos. Para isso, utilizaremos uma metodologia eminentemente bibliográfica respaldada na descolonialidade e, em específico, no conceito de “pensamento próprio”, com base nas discussões de Walter Mignolo, Facundo Giuliano, Boaventura de Sousa Santos, Catherine Walsh e Edgar Cézar Nolasco a fim de delimitar pontos de contato e diferenciais entre Santiago e Candido no engaste do debate Sul-Sul ensejado. Intenta-se, portanto, problematizar e discutir os modus operandi críticos deslindados pelos referidos intelectuais brasileiros a fim de comprovar que, mesmo bem intencionados, não conseguiram dar conta de desobedecerem ou mesmo se desprenderem das imposições ocidentais europeias hospedadas e reproduzidas à exaustão nestes trópicos verde-amarelos entrecortados pela subserviência reprodutória enquanto Sul global em detrimento às metrópoles centralizadas.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".