Mecanismo de control de la legalidad urbanística: la acción pública
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".