Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article seeks to present a critique of the New Urban Agenda.It begins referring personal notes about the three United Nations Conferences on Human Settlements between 1976 and 2016: from Habitat I (Vancouver), Habitat II (Istanbul) to Habitat III (Quito); and it explains how this new agenda was prepared between 2014 to 2016.The critical review expresses disappointment because of the wishful thinking based neither on the present nor the past; it does not assess the accomplishment of the Istanbul commitments or the new emerging problems; its sounds as appealing to the magical thought.It appears like an open agenda to any possible position and purpose.Criticism points out two different questions: issues that got lost among the many texts during the preparatory process before Quito; and the setbacks in relation to the urban land issue that occurred between the Vancouver, Istanbul and Quito Agendas.It concludes with a discussion about the importance of the right to the city, and how this was scarcely outlined in the New Urban Agenda.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".