The Documento Curricular para Goiás – Etapa Ensino Médio and the centrality of linguistic competences as the core of reforms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research is part of the field of educational policies, specifically the subfield of curricular policies, with the curriculum for teaching Portuguese as its main corpus. This is historicaldocumentary research, which has as its object of analysis the Bimestralization of the components of Basic General Education and the Training Itineraries of the Documento Curricular para Goiás – Etapa Ensino Médio (DC-GOEM). The sequential organization of the contents, skills and learning objectives set out in the documents is problematized according to the critical theory of the curriculum, based on authors such as Apple (1982; 2000; 2003), Laval (2004) and Dardot and Laval (2016), seeking to highlight the relationships between the changes defined from the process of homogenization and flexibility of subjectivities as a driving force for the development of neoliberal rationality, more suited to the needs of the market in contemporary times. We also used authors from the field of critical education, namely, Ramos (2001; 2010; 2017), Kuenzer (1991; 2000; 2007) and Frigotto, Ciavatta and Ramos (2005), to describe the progress and nuances of this process in the Brazilian context, relating, as supported by authors such as Pochmann (2017), Dourado (2007; 2010; 2019), Cury (2002; 2018) and Saviani (2013a; 2013b; 2016), the educational reform to national and international macroeconomic changes. Considering the specificity of the approach to teaching Portuguese, we turn to authors such as Calvet (2002; 2007), Bourdieu (1977; 2011), Oliveira (2007; 2016) and Pratt (2013), in order to understand the centrality given to the broad area of languages in the new curriculum, recognizing the acquisition and development of linguistic skills as the main instrument for constructing subjects, and, therefore, subjectivities.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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; 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".