La Precariedad De Los Comunes Urbanos Frente Al Derecho Público Europeo
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Los comunes urbanos son una forma de conceptualizacion y (auto)gestion de la produccion del espacio que se presenta a si misma como una alternativa divergente con la concepcion juridico-economica tanto Publica (Interes General del Estado) como Privada (Libre voluntad de las partes en el mercado). El gran auge y mistificacion del termino ha promovido que se califiquen como comunes urbanos una gran tipo de practicas urbanas, tanto nuevas como existentes, como por ejemplo las promovidas en Europa bajo la ambigua denominacion de “urbanismo participativo”. Manteniendo que existe un antagonismo de base entre el urbanismo participativo y los comunes urbanos, y que “participativo” no es “comun”, el presente articulo expone las principales diferencias juridico-urbanisticas existentes entre los modos Privado, Publico y Comun de produccion del espacio urbano. Ello nos permitira comparar la concepcion del urbanismo participativo desarrollada por la Union Europea a partir de los programas Urban con las conclusiones obtenidas por el trabajo de campo realizado entre 2012 y 2017 sobre los principales comunes urbanos surgidos en Barcelona a raiz del 15M. Un analisis comparativo que evidencia la gran dependencia que los comunes urbanos todavia tienen en la practica respecto al regimen publico-privado de produccion del espacio.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".