Análise do setor terciário em empreendimentos do programa Minha Casa, Minha Vida (PMCMV): um estudo de caso em loteamentos do bairro Shopping Park em Uberlândia-MG
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present work addresses the discussion of the emergence of trade and service in Social Interest Housing (HIS) projects. In this sense, the main objective of this research is to understand the socio-spatial role of the tertiary sector in some housing developments in Shopping Park – a neighborhood in Uberlândia-MG, which derived from the National Housing Program (PMCMV). The region is mainly characterized by the distance and difficulty of access to urban centralities. In addition, the scarcity and precariousness of public facilities in this area are notable. This means that these dwellings are extremely fragile and vulnerable physically-territorially and socially. However, it is noted that the residents continue to overcome these difficulties and adapt the local environment to improve their quality of life. One of these adaptations are the commercial and service establishments, attached to their homes. In this sense, it is proposed an analysis of these commercial enterprises and their consumer market. Thus, it is necessary to understand the context in which the enterprise was implemented and its urban insertion in the city - through data collection, spatial analysis and interviews; understand the National Housing Policy and, specifically, the “Minha Casa, Minha Vida” program - through a normative revision in the appropriate legislation; to characterize the tertiary sector in the Case Study - through field survey and questionnaires applied to the entrepreneurs; to diagnose the profile of the merchant, to draw the socioeconomic profile of the population and, finally, to better understand the needs and perceptions of the residents - through questionnaires. The research aims to contribute to possible reassessments of the National Housing Policy as well as foster discussions and research on the tertiary sector in PMCMV enterprises, from the understanding of the needs beyond the "shelter" without effective provision of the right to the city - infrastructure, transportation, social facility and commerce.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".