Bibliographic record
Abstract
O texto busca refletir sobre as implicações da adoção de práticas de co-gestão gerencial introduzidas por administrações municipais, no Brasil, a partir de uma experiência piloto implantada pela Prefeitura do Recife, no período 1986/88, dado seu caráter inovador, no contexto das experiências recentes de gestão urbana, em nível municipal. Procura elucidar os elementos distintivos deste tipo de modelo de gestão, avaliando os seus limites, alcance e possibilidades; particularmente, sua eficácia no atendimento das necessidades e conseqüente melhoria de vida das comunidades pobres, e no fortalecimento de sua organização social. A pergunta-chave que acompanhou a investigação é se, frente à incontestável e comprovada ineficácia dos modelos tradicionais, há possibilidade de instauração de novas alternativas de gestão urbana para áreas populares, cuja base consista na co-gestão Poder Local-administração municipal/Comunidade. Os resultados do estudo apontam que apesar das limitações do projeto, seja pelo porte reduzido das intervenções levadas a efeito no bairro, seja pelos estrangulamentos decorrentes de problemas estruturais da máquina pública e da própria fragilidade da organização política da população, a experiência foi extremamente importante: houve um salto efetivo de qualidade nas condições infra-estruturais da área em foco, na melhoria de vida da população, como também, no processo de organização social da comunidade. PALAVRAS-CHAVE: Co-gestão, modelos de gestão, representação/representatividade, poder local, legitimação. Co-management practices in the Public management at local level Suley Maria Ribeiro Leal The text reflects the implications of the adoption of “co-gestion” practices introduced by municipal administration in Brazil, from an experience that was introduced by the town hall of Recife, in the period 1986/1988, with an innovative caracter, in the context of the experiences of urban gestion, at a municipal level. Searches to explain the distinct elements of this particular gestion model, evaluating its limits, reaches and possibilities; and particulary its efficacy as it deals with atends the necessities and the improvement of life of the poor comunities, and the strenght of social organization.The most important question of the research is wether, faced with the incontestable and ineffective tradicional models, there is a possibility of establishing new alternatives of urban gestion in the popular areas, which are based in “co-gestion”. (Local government-municipal administration - comunity).The study shows that althought there are project limitations (as the reduced importance of the interventions made in the district, the strutural problems of the public administration and the fragility of the political organization of the population) the experience was extremely important: there was a great improvement of quality in the conditions of urban basic services of the studied area, better conditions of life for the population, as well as in the organization process in the comunities. KEY WORDS: Co-management, management models, representation/representative, local power, legitimization. Publicação Online do Caderno CRH: http://www.cadernocrh.ufba.br
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 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".