El alcance de la participación de los particulares en la revisión del Plan General Municipal de Ordenación Urbanística
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La participacion publica en el urbanismo no implica la imposicion a la Administracion del modelo de ciudad. Es por ello por lo que la Administracion no se encuentra vinculada con las alegaciones y sugerencias que se realicen. Los distintos cauces de participacion publica han de servir para que la Administracion valore las alternativas que se ofrece, pero sin que su rechazo suponga desconocer el derecho participativo. Tener en cuenta o valorar las alegaciones o sugerencias no significa admitirlas cuando solo buscan intereses particulares, ya que el planeamiento general no se negocia, y que de no ser asi se romperia el modelo de ciudad propuesto al ceder a los grupos de presion. El planeamiento general no puede convertirse en un mercadeo de intereses particulares. Aceptar esta tesis supone destruir la esencia del urbanismo y la esencia de la planificacion urbanistica. Seria supeditar el interes particular sobre el general, al que esta totalmente prohibido.
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 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".