MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1597707762 · doi:10.1344/sn2014.18.15074

“We want our City back!” Estrategias y valores ante las reformas metropolitanas

2014· article· es· W1597707762 on OpenAlex
Mariona Tomàs

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueScripta Nova Revista Electrónica de Geografía y Ciencias Sociales · 2014
Typearticle
Languagees
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFrench Urban and Social Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceHumanitiesWelfare economicsEconomicsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Las reformas metropolitanas ponen en evidencia la existencia de visiones dispares sobre el municipio y los mecanismos de gobierno de las areas metropolitanas, teorizadas bajo cuatro corrientes (escuelas de la reforma y de la eleccion racional, perspectivas neo-regionalista y rescalar). En este articulo analizamos, mediante el caso de Montreal, como los actores se apropian de estas visiones y se movilizan para defender su ideal metropolitano. Las estrategias y valores ante las reformas metropolitanas no se producen en el vacio sino que estan condicionadas por las normas del sistema politico e institucional. Asi, la capacidad de influencia de los actores en las reformas esta marcada por las reglas del juego politico, que favorecen y legitiman las ideas de unos grupos por encima de otros

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.755
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0050.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.088
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.234 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it