MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2584846572 · doi:10.20396/urbana.v8i3.8646011

John F.C. Turner y el debate sobre la participación popular en la producción de hábitat en América Latina en la cultura arquitectónico-urbanística, 1961-1976

2016· article· es· W2584846572 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
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

VenueURBANA Revista Eletrônica do Centro Interdisciplinar de Estudos sobre a Cidade · 2016
Typearticle
Languagees
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban and Rural Development Challenges
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical scienceGeographyArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

La primera Conferencia de las Naciones Unidas sobre Asentamientos Humanos, Hábitat I, (Vancouver, 1976) es considerada como el momento en que la cuestión de la participación popular pasó a ocupar un lugar central en el discurso urbanístico predominante a nivel global. Durante al menos el decenio siguiente, los programas de "lotes con servicios" y esquemas de "auto-ayuda" se convirtieron en la norma y palabras clave en las organizaciones multilaterales, especialmente en el Banco Mundial. El fin de este artículo es revisar el período que se extiende entre el lanzamiento del programa estadounidense Alianza para el Progreso (1961) y Hábitat I (1976), para dar cuenta de la construcción de este consenso y su incorporación en la cultura arquitectónico-urbanística.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.720
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.289 · 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