MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2796434366 · doi:10.1177/1538513218762327

Institutional Arrangements and Political Shifts in Curitiba, Brazil: A Comparative Analysis of the 2004 and 2014 Master Plans

2018· article· en· W2796434366 on OpenAlexaff
Débora Follador, Fábio Duarte, Mario Carrier

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Planning History · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban and Rural Development Challenges
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersCoordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior
KeywordsTechnocracyMaster planCuritibaPoliticsPublic administrationPlan (archaeology)Government (linguistics)InstitutionalisationPolitical scienceLocal governmentSociologyEconomic growthManagementEconomicsGeographyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In theory, shifts in institutional arrangements result in new public policies. This articles focuses on Curitiba, Brazil, an international flagship city of urban planning recognized for its technocratic government. The 2012 municipal elections and the 2013 nationwide political upheaval led to a change in the city's institutional arrangement. As a consequence, the 2014 Master Plan was conceived with the tagline of more public participation. This paper analyzes whether the changes in institutional arrangements influenced the city's planning process and the Master Plan.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.198
Threshold uncertainty score0.260

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.074
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.255 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Planning HistorySame topicUrban and Rural Development ChallengesFrench-language works237,207