Modelos de tomada de decisão no processo orçamentário brasileiro: uma agenda de pesquisas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Considerando a necessidade de realização de estudos com intuito de melhorar a compreensão dos processos decisórios no setor público, o presente artigo tem como objetivo identificar agenda para pesquisa prioritária e inédita na área orçamentária brasileira, a partir dos principais conceitos dos modelos de estudos do processo decisório incremental, do julgamento serial, dos fluxos múltiplos (MS) e do equilíbrio pontuado (terremoto). A agenda de pesquisa proposta tem como base buscar resposta para a clássica questão levantada por V. O. Key Jr. (1940): “em que base deveria ser decidido alocar X dólares na atividade A em vez da atividade B?” Para tanto, os estudos orçamentários propostos são apresentados em forma de temas e questões a ser objeto de pesquisa no âmbito dos referidos modelos decisórios, relacionados com o processo orçamentário brasileiro.Palavras-chave: Orçamento público, processo decisório, agenda de pesquisa
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 | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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".