Bibliographic record
Abstract
La tercera Conferencia de las Naciones Unidas sobre la Vivienda y el Desarrollo Urbano Sostenible –conocida con el nombre de «Habitat III»– se celebro en Quito del 17 al 20 de octubre de 2016. Despues de las conferencias «Habitat I» (Vancouver, 1976) y «Habitat II» (Estambul, 1996), en «Habitat III» los Estados adoptaron un Nuevo Programa para las Ciudades en el que se definen las estrategias de la comunidad internacional en materia de desarrollo urbano para los veinte proximos anos. A pesar de la importancia del tema y de la intensa movilizacion que suscito la conferencia, tuvo un eco mediatico y politico relativamente limitado. ?Hay que concluir por ello que fue un fracaso? ?En que ambitos debemos buscar los resultados y la repercusion de las conferencias internacionales sobre temas urbanos? Para responder a estas preguntas, el presente articulo propone un analisis empirico del proceso de «Habitat III» y de la forma en que se abordan y debaten las cuestiones urbanas en las Naciones Unidas desde la primera cumbre, celebrada en 1976.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 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".