ACESSIBILIDADE NAS ÁREAS VERDES PÚBLICAS PARA PROMOVER A JUSTIÇA AMBIENTAL
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A demanda por soluções que promovam a resiliência e a sustentabilidade, sobretudo no contexto do planejamento urbano é crescente. Sendo assim, nosso objetivo é propor uma metodologia para a avaliação da acessibilidade nas áreas verdes públicas no contexto nacional, de modo a contribuir com a formulação de políticas públicas que promovam a justiça ambiental. Foi elaborado um panorama sobre os conceitos de justiça ambiental e acessibilidade às áreas verdes, bem como, um estudo de caso em Belo Horizonte, aplicando uma proposta metodológica capaz de avaliar a acessibilidade às áreas verdes da cidade. A metodologia proposta evidenciou os locais que precisam de investimentos na capital mineira, bem como, permitiu quantifi car a população afetada pela falta de acessibilidade às áreas verdes. Recomenda-se que a metodologia seja replicada nas cidades brasileiras como ferramenta de auxílio para a gestão da fl oresta urbana.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".