La nueva agenda urbana: pensamiento mágico.
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.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
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 it