Bibliographic record
Abstract
The institution of the National Education System (SNE) is a demand that permeates Brazilian history, as well as the disputes for it and for the Collaboration Regime. The general objective of this research was to analyze the political-institutional role, actions and contributions of the Secretariat for Articulation with Teaching Systems (Sase) for the implementation of the SNE and regulation of the Collaboration Regime from 2011 to 2016 - that is , from its creation to its reconfiguration due to the legal-media-parliamentary coup. In addition, an attempt was made to confirm or deny the hypothesis that more than Sase's role in establishing the SNE and in regulating the Collaboration Regime, the secretariat was a welcoming space from 2011 to 2016 for private interest agents, from so that they gained prominence in the field of educational policies and in the definition of forms for the Collaboration Regime and for the SNE. As a documentary corpus, official sources were used (management reports, minutes of meetings and technical texts) and extra-official sources (interviews, news, participation in events and others), theoretically analyzed from the concepts of State and Hegemony by Antônio Gramsci, from the concept André Singer's Lulism, Francisco de Oliveira's Reverse Hegemony, and David Harvey's and Christian Laval's Neoliberalism. To map the alliances made in the time frame of the research, the Social Network Analysis Software, Gephi, was also used. The final considerations indicated that both the SNE and the Collaboration Regime, when funding education, completed disputed fields in educational policies and in this context Sase's actions were clarified with agents of private interests, especially with Todos pela Education. It can be said that the non-implementation of the SNE and the non-regulation of the Collaboration Regime by Sase was a mechanism of hegemony in reverse to manage the social problem of education.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.750 | 0.501 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier 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".