PEDALAR NA COPA 2014 E NAS OLIMPÍADAS 2016 NO BRASIL?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper is an approximation tothe projects of the FIFA World Cupin 2014 and 2016 Olympic Gamesto be held in Brazil. The intentionof the study is describing what isprovided in the projects of these twoevents in relation to urban mobility,as well as examinating these proposalsfrom the perspective of thepromotion and consolidation of thebicycle as a mobility alternative. Fordoing this the following topics arepresented: The Bicycle Brazil Project:Achievements and Challenges,which is a national public policyproposition of using the bicycle as amobility option; the Urban Mobilityproject of the World Cup host cities in 2014; and the Rio de Janeiro´ sUrban Mobility project for the 2016Olympics. Finally, after presentingthe three projects, they are articulatedwith emphasis on educationalopportunities and cultural formation,concluding that the bicycle as ameans of transport is almost ignoredin all dimensions as an alternative ofUrban Mobility in these events heldin Brazil.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.002 |
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".