DO COMUM DA EDUCAÇÃO AMBIENTAL À EDUCAÇÃO AMBIENTAL DO COMUM
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Based on the notion of Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri that the common is not onlyshared land, but created languages, established social practices, modes of sociability and collectiveintellectual production, this text seeks to discuss environmental education as a communal field ofresearch and militancy in ecology and education, and to think the common as a privileged space for thecreation and exercise of ecological perspectives in education. The article is the partial result oftheoretical and conceptual research, and is divided into four parts. The first one presents the concept of"common notions" in Spinoza and in the reading of some of his commentators; the second seeks tounderstand the influence of the "common notions" on the elaboration of the concept of common inthe joint work of Hardt and Negri, and the debate about it in the work of Dardot and Laval. In thethird part it intends to think about the creation, production and dissemination of environmentaleducation in Brazil as a result of the actions and thoughts in common of educators and environmentalactivists. And in the fourth part, it seeks to build, from the proposal of the Ecological Perspectives inEducation, especially in the work of Reigota, some conceptual connections to think of environmentaleducation as a political exercise built for the common.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".