Rising of Regional Development Proposed by Complementary Law 123/2006 in Bidding: Comparing Bidding From Two Towns in the Southern Cone of the State of Rondônia - Brazil
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study was intended to assess whether the bidding notices of Cerejeiras and Cabixi had put regional development foward, under the terms of Complementary Law 123/2006. The research is exploratory, quantitative, with a longitudinal cut, based on the bidding notices from the health and education departments, which were carried out in 2017 and 2018, extracted from transparency portals of the studied towns. The notices were organized and classified in a table, identifying each one of the items covered by the Complementary Law, comparing them with the law and what is contained in the notices. It was checked that the city halls apparently have little knowledge or clarification about the application of the law, since its public notices establish more tiebreakers criteria for Micro and Small Enterprises (MSEs) than other benefits allowed by law. It was also observed that the provided parts by law are not used. The construction contract notices did not provide for the subcontracting of MSEs. Most notices presented the preference for hiring local and regional companies incorrectly. There were no notices with quotas for the exclusive supply of MSEs in bids for goods of a divisible nature. In addition, it was noted that public agents from these towns need training related to the topic to apply the law and thus foster regional development correctly. Most notices presented the preference for hiring local and regional companies incorrectly. There were no notices with quotas for the exclusive supply of MSEs in bidding for goods of a divisible nature. In addition, it was noted that the towns need training related to the topic to apply the law and thus foster regional development correctly.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".