Escrita acadêmica nas áreas da linguística e enfermagem: um estudo dos relatórios finais de iniciação científica
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Given the current scarcity of researches that analyze the Institution of Scientific Initiation Scholarships - PIBIC Research Report, from the perspective of Sociodiscursive Interactionism - ISD and the influence of Disciplinary Culture, we consider it necessary to investigate the sections Abstracts and Introductions of the Final Scientific Initiation Reports (RFIC) reports of PIBIC / UFPB grantees, areas of Linguistics and Nursing from the point of view of its textual-discursive materiality and its connections with the culture of each area. In order to reach the proposed objective, we chose as the category of analysis the production parameters, the infrastructure (general plan and types of speeches) and the influence of the disciplinary culture in the construction of the texts. Thus, for the development of this qualitative research of an interpretative nature and exploratory objectives, which uses a documentary corpus, we have the collaboration of the Coordination of the RFIC (PROPESQ / UFPB), which provided archives, containing final reports of scientific research. Of these, we selected 20 reports, 10 from the Nursing area and 10 from the Linguistics area. To support the analysis, we rely on the theoretical-methodological perspective of the ISD, which bases its theoretical contribution on two axes: human development and the social of the formative activities (BRONCKART, 1999, 2006, 2009), with a special focus on text infrastructure and in the discursive worlds. In this paper, we present the results of the literature on the literature of the literature (LeChuan, 2007), Leurão (2007), when discussing the importance of academic genres in the training of students. Hyland (2000), Navarro (2014) and Costa (2012), who discuss the concept of disciplinary culture and the influence on the various written productions, Pires (2015), Massi and Queiroz (2015) that discuss Scientific Initiation and PIBIC. The discussion carried out throughout the work, from the point of view of infrastructure, points out reports with some singularities, however, most of them include all the items requested by the Program to prepare a research report. In general, in the analyzed sections of the RFIC, both in Nursing and in Linguistics, the predominance of the type of theoretical speeches with the fitting of the interactive report prevails (world of exposing and narrating) prevails. Even though it is a single genre and with the same purpose, the disciplinary culture permeates the writing of these agents, evidenced by the thematic content, use of specific terminologies in the area and structural norms of the productions. In Nursing, the agents follow a stricter orientation, as much as the rules established by PROPESQ, as to the rules of the Brazilian Association of Technical Standards (ABNT) and Vancouver Standards. Linguistics, on the other hand, showed themselves to be under the influence of reports proposed by ABNT and did not strictly follow the model suggested by the program. Thus, the cultures of these two disciplines differ socially and cognitively, with contrasts not only in their objects of knowledge, but in the structures of argument, objectives and social behaviors.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".