Street Situation: Conceptualization and Measurement Methods in the City of Buenos Aires
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Argentina does not have a single, consistent definition of life on the streets that is accepted and applied throughout the country and covers people living on the streets. Likewise, there is no statistical metric to measure the scope of the problem. In the case of the Autonomous City of Buenos Aires, the counts carried out by the Government of the City of Buenos Aires are the only indication of the numerical magnitude of the problem, but the data obtained do not correspond to the proportion of the problem. As a result, there are strong controversies between the official figures and those estimated by civil society organizations. This article aims to show how the delimitation of an operational conceptual category has strong implications for the numerical estimation of the number and characteristics of people living on the streets. Firstly, a brief review is made of international experiences involving the development of tools that provide both a clear and consistent definition and inadequate framework for collecting reliable data on the problem. Then, in the context of Argentina, we characterize the two forms most commonly used to indicate life on the streets in the Autonomous City of Buenos Aires: ‘without a home’ and ‘street situation. ’Finally, under the selected categories, the methodologies used to establish the numerical magnitude of the problem are described and compared. In this sense, a comparison is made between the official counts of the Government of the City of Buenos Aires and the Popular Census of Homeless People carried out by civil society organizations in accordance with current legislation. Argentina no cuenta con una definición única y constante sobre la vida en las calles que se acepte y se aplique en el territorio nacional y que abarque a las personas que se encuentran viviendo en la calle. De igual manera, tampoco existe una delimitación estadística que dimensione el alcance de la problemática. En el caso de la Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires, los conteos llevados a cabo por el Gobierno de la Ciudad de Buenos Aires son el único indicio de la magnitud numérica del problema, pero los datos obtenidos no se corresponden con la proporción del problema. A partir de ello existen fuertes controversias entre las cifras oficiales y las estimadas por las organizaciones de la sociedad civil. Este artículo se propone mostrar cómo la delimitación de una categoría conceptual operativa conlleva fuertes implicancias en la estimación numérica sobre la cantidad y las características de personas que se encuentran viviendo en las calles. A partir de ello, en primer lugar, se realiza un breve recorrido de experiencias internacionales que han centrado su atención en el desarrollo de herramientas que proporcionen tanto una definición clara y consistente como un marco adecuado para la recopilación de datos confiables sobre la problemática. Luego, en el marco de Argentina, se caracterizan las dos formas más utilizadas para denominar la vida en las calles en la Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires: sin techo y situación de calle. Por último, acorde con las categorías seleccionadas, se describen y comparan las metodologías empleadas para establecer la magnitud numérica del problema. En este sentido se realiza una comparación entre los conteos oficiales del Gobierno de la Ciudad de Buenos Aires y el Censo Popular de Personas en Situación de Calle llevado adelante por organizaciones de la sociedad civil acorde con la legislación vigente.
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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it