MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Mecanismo de control de la legalidad urbanística: la acción pública

2023· article· es· W4387192172 on OpenAlex
José Enrique Candela Talavero

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCuadernos de Derecho Local · 2023
Typearticle
Languagees
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAdministrative Law and Governance
Canadian institutionsImpact
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nuestro ordenamiento jurídico se fundamenta en el principio de legalidad, del que nacen diversos mecanismos con los que poder controlar la actuación de la Administración Pública, la cual se encuentra sometida a la ley y al derecho. Si bien la legitimación procesal en el orden contencioso-administrativo tiene unas notas características, como es tener “interés legítimo”, conviene compararlas con las exigidas para ejercitar el control mediante la acción pública, que precisa la de actuar en pro de la legalidad, gracias a la cual las personas físicas y jurídicas pueden exigir la observación y el cumplimiento de la misma. Este es un instrumento con reconocimiento legal en distintos campos de la actuación de la Administración, resultando muy amplia su aplicación al ámbito del urbanismo. En este trabajo se analizará el reparto competencial entre el Estado y las comunidades autónomas sobre el mismo, así como los criterios jurisprudenciales para su delimitación y regulación.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.827
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.322 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it