O ORÇAMENTO PARTICIPATIVO COMO POLÍTICA PÚBLICA: reflexões sobre o caso de Belo Horizonte
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Este artigo se propõe a discutir a prática do Orçamento Participativo implementado pelas três últimas administrações da Prefeitura em Belo Horizonte, um desses novos instrumentos que tem mostrado grande potencialidade de “accountability ”. Na primeira seção, analisamos, de forma sucinta, conceitos vinculados à ação coletiva, participação social e formato institucional. Posteriormente, realizamos um histórico da trajetória da política do Orçamento Participativo em Belo Horizonte, destacando suas potencialidades e principais constrangimentos. Por fim, realizamos um breve balanço dessa política, inspirado nos paradigmas discutidos inicialmente. PALAVRAS:CHAVE: Ação coletiva, participação, formato institucional, orçamento participativo, gestão local. THE PARTICIPATORY BUDGET PROCESS AS A PUBLIC POLICY: THOUGHTS ON BELO HORIZONTE’S CASE This paper proposes the discussion of the Participatory Budget process implemented in the last three administrations in Belo Horizonte’s Municipality, one of the new instruments that has showed a great accountability potential. In the first section we summarize the analysis of concepts associated to collective action, social participation and institutional format. Later on, we have traced the history of the Participatory budgeting Belo Horizonte, calling attention to its potentialities and major constraints. Finally, we make a quick balance of this politics, inspired on the paradigms that were discussed in the beginning. KEY WORDS: Collective action, participation, institutional format, participatory budgeting, local management 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 | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
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.
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".