MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2099848853 · doi:10.7202/044882ar

Participation in Bauru master plans, Brazil: analysis of the historical evolution of the consultation process

2010· article· en· W2099848853 on OpenAlex
Maria Helena Cavalho Rigitano, Ademir Paceli Barbassa

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
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

VenueEnvironnement urbain · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban Development and Societal Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTypologyConstitutionProcess (computing)Intervention (counseling)State (computer science)Political sciencePublic administrationGeographySociologyLawArchaeologyNursingMedicineComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Brazil, a policy on citizen participation and consultation in urban intervention programs, in particular in the development of master plans, was first introduced into the Federal Constitution in 1988. This article presents an historical reconstitution of Master Plans in Bauru – State of São Paulo – Brazil. The 1968, 1988 and 2005/2006 consultation methods are analyzed using established criteria. The degree of community participation in the processes is estimated by drawing on a typology based on the level of involvement by residents. The effects of participation caused by changes in political regime, technical planning vision, legal support to consultation, recognition of community importance and knowledge acquired during the process are highlighted and discussed.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.269 · 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