MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

ITINERÁRIOS DE IDEIAS E PRÁTICAS NA ARQUITETURA HABITACIONAL – UMA ABORDAGEM COMPARATIVA ENTRE BRASIL E HOLANDA

2019· article· pt· W3004026496 on OpenAlexaff
André Vaillant, Rita Velloso

Bibliographic record

VenueCadernos de arquitetura e urbanismo · 2019
Typearticle
Languagept
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban and Rural Development Challenges
Canadian institutionsDiscovery Air (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesSociologyPolitical sciencePhilosophyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Este trabalho busca traçar uma nova comparação entre os sistemas de financiamento de habitação social brasileiro e holandês, partindo do princípio de que a complexidade do quadro nacional impõe características muito próprias à situação brasileira, incompatíveis com a mera importação de modelos e práticas urbanísticas concebidos nos países ditos centrais. Assim, procuramos demonstrar que paralelos existem entre esses dois modelos e, sobretudo, qual a natureza dos desafios que os permeiam.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.128
Threshold uncertainty score0.255

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0050.017
Scholarly communication0.0100.004
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCadernos de arquitetura e urbanismoSame topicUrban and Rural Development ChallengesFrench-language works237,207