Da porta para dentro, da porta para fora: a rua pode ser a extensão da casa?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A rua é compreendida, nos tempos atuais, como um elemento urbano chave em práticas cidadãs que visam ao desenvolvimento de um urbanismo sustentável. A partir dessa premissa, presente nas recomendações urbanísticas de Gehl & Svarre (2018), e da visão conceitual e antropológica de DaMatta (1997), é que experiências com projetos de parklets executados na cidade do Recife (Brasil) e em Toronto (Canadá) são analisadas nesse artigo. Procura-se demonstrar que as diferentes culturas, formas de planejar e vivenciar práticas na rua são refletidas, consequentemente, nas diferentes soluções projetuais, bem como no uso e apropriação do espaço público urbano. O registro e reflexão sobre essas experiências visa auxiliar na redefinição de estratégias para a implantação, com sucesso, de equipamentos semelhantes, em outras cidades brasileiras. Assim, o texto está estruturado em quatro partes: 1) introdução; 2) análise de dois parklets implantados no Recife; 3) análise do projeto-piloto em Toronto; e 4) considerações finais. A street is understood in the contemporary moment as a key urban element that contributes to the development of a citizen’s everyday practice of sustainable urbanism. This premise, central to the recommendations made by Gehl & Svarre (2018) and DaMatta’s (1997) conceptual and anthropological vision, informs the theoretical underpinnings of this paper that examines the urban experiences of parklets in Recife (Brazil) and Toronto (Canada). In doing so, we demonstrate that different cultures, ways of planning, and street uses are all related to the design solutions proposed, as well as the use and appropriation of urban public space. These reflections aim to assist in redefining strategies for successful design of parklets and similar equipment in other Brazilian cities. This paper is organized as follows: 1) an introduction; 2) an analysis of two parklets located in Recife; 3) an analysis of a pilot project in Toronto; and 4) a conclusion.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.004 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".