Guto Oca: a cor que não vejo
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Are we sure of what we see? For most people to observe colors, to distinguish the difference between them and to still classify them are easy tasks. It’s not so simple for color blind people. In this dissertation i started from my experiences in the scop of Atr Education and its influences in my work as a black artist and throughout this research i highlight the fact that as being colorblind i used my visual limitations to composse, create, and recreate, artistic Works in the field of visual arts. In this contexto, the general objective of this research is: to investigate in my artistic Works influences of physicological color blindeness and “racial color blindness” in the pictorial compositions and in the themesused in my poetics. For this, i used the metaphore of “non-extistent color” based on the following concepts: “racial color blindness”, which problematizes he whitening of black skin in Brazil and “Afro-Brazilian art”, establishing relationships between the concept and my creative process. To carry out the analysis, i opted for the methodological approach of education research based on a/r/tography systematized by Doctor Rita L. Irwin (2013) and her team from the Departament of Curriculum & Pedagogy of University of Brith Columbia, Canada, used as a methodological procedure the intervention research starting from my artistic practice and its singularities, visualities and subjectivities, enabling a continuous processo f investigation (a living research). For theorical interlocutions, i resorted to the concepts of Afro-Brazilian art addressed by Renata Felinto (2016), Walter Zanini (1983), Roberto Conduru (2007) and Renato Silva (2016), i also worked with authors such as Silvio Almeida(2018) and Grada Kilomba (2019) wo they discuss structural racism and its implications in contemporary societies, aiming at a theoretical basis to justify my poetc immersion in the theme. And therefor, i analyzed artistc Works of my own, their a esthetc and conceptual developments, which werw exposed in two individual exhibitions: “Color that i don’t see”, at Usina Cultural Energisa Gallery and “Still there is a body” at Sesc Cabo Branco Gallery, both held in 2019, in the city of João pessoa, Paraíba, Brazil.
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 | 0.003 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.005 |
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".