The Reform of High Education (Law 13.415/2017) as a policy neoliberal for brazilian basic education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This work is primarily aimed at examining the High School Reform (Law 13.415/2017) as an educational policy. It is an effort to understand some of the social processes that influenced the development of this reform as a public policy, considering the roles of different agents involved in educational issues during its formulation. The hypothesis in this study is that the High School Reform reflects a neoliberal conception of Education, State, and Society, and, as an educational public policy, it has concrete implications for the teaching of sociology. Therefore, it seeks to examine the foundations of Neoliberalism as a political proposal for education. It adopts a perspective that critiques neoliberalism as a normative system that produces certain types of social relations and ways of life, influencing how we are led to behave toward each other and toward ourselves. Neoliberalism, through a set of discourses, practices, and mechanisms, defines norms for social life, establishing a form of governance over people whose fundamental principle is competition. Within this framework, we are positioned in economic competition with each other and led to perceive and behave as a company (DARDOT and LAVAL, 2016). Neoliberalism, therefore, produces subjectivities. However, we seek to demonstrate how neoliberal mechanisms of subjectivity production are not detached from processes within the productive system, where productive restructuring constitutes the objective basis upon which neoliberalism develops (ANTUNES, 2017, BERNARDO, 2009, FONSECA and BRUNO, 2015, TRAGTENBERG, 1995). The research sources comprised primary documents along with a bibliographic analysis of specialized sociological texts deemed relevant to this topic, resulting in an evaluation of the High School Reform (Law 13.415/2017) grounded in the articulation of these sources with teaching practice.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".