Avaliação Da Sessão Temática Estado, Planejamento E Política Do Xvi Enanpur (Evaluation of Thematic Session State Planning and Politics of XVI Enanpur)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Portuguese Abstract: A gestao urbana pode se beneficiar com estudos de infometria para contribuir com seus pesquisadores. O objetivo e analisar e identificar o perfil informacional da producao cientifica, publicada nos Anais da XVI ENANPUR, especificamente a sessao tematica dois, sob os 2 pilares: Estado, Planejamento e Politica. Trata-se de uma pesquisa informacional de natureza quantitativa, para identificar padrao de preferencia por temas e seus reflexos quantitativos. Como procedimentos metodologicos foram utilizados a Infometria e o acoplamento bibliografico. Os resultados obtidos apontaram para uma distribuicao homogenea das tematicas, restando como tendencia de preferencia os temas; Teorias do Estado e do Planejamento e Gestao e Governanca Urbana. A conclusao tambem aponta para uma dispersao de temporalidade nas citacoes e no acoplamento bibliografico. English Abstract: Urban management can benefit from Infometrics bibliographic studies and to contribute to its researchers. The purpose is to analyze and identify the informational profile of scientific production, published in the Proceedings of the XVI ENANPUR, specifically the thematic session two, under the pillars: State Planning and Policy. This is an informational research of a quantitative nature, for standard preference by identifying issues and their quantitative influence. As methodological procedures were used to Infometrics and bibliographic coupling. The results pointed to a homogeneous distribution of thematic, leaving as the preferred trend themes; Theories of State Planning and Management and Urban Governance. The finding also indicates a dispersion of temporality in the citations and bibliographic coupling.
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 | 0.011 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".