Bibliographic record
Abstract
En este trabajo se realiza una descripción del régimen legal de los contratos de participación público privada (PPP). Asimismo, se presentan las características principales de los contratos PPP. Luego se analiza la programación presupuestaria de los proyectos bajo esa modalidad desde 2018 en adelante. También se abordan los problemas que sufrieron las iniciativas desde aquel año por las turbulencias económicas y financieras que atravesó el país, las que, a su vez, se usaron para justificar un nuevo e irregular préstamo con el Fondo Monetario Internacional (FMI). Las condiciones del FMI conllevaron recortes en el programa de obras, en particular sobre aquellas a consumarse con contratos PPP. De todas maneras, la fragilidad del plan PPP exhibió otras deficiencias de transparencia y sustentabilidad. Por último, se examinan los pocos contratos PPP que se celebraron para corredores viales y se desarrollan las razones de su final.
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 | 0.008 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".