Una Administración para el 99 %. Reforma administrativa para la igualdad real
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Este artículo aborda los problemas que aquejan a las administraciones en su atención a la ciudadanía, singularmente a la más vulnerable. Para ello, se realiza un diagnóstico de los elementos que dificultan que la ciudadanía, con independencia de su cualificación, contactos o nivel de competencia digital, acceda de forma igualitaria a los recursos, servicios y procedimientos administrativos. También se analizan críticamente los distintos enfoques doctrinales sobre los que se ha querido incidir en una mejor atención administrativa y que permiten analizar si es un problema estructural o puntual y si es posible que una Administración lenta, cerrada o poco eficiente garantice el principio de igualdad. Finalmente se realizan una serie de propuestas regulatorias, organizativas y procedimentales para una reforma administrativa que garantice los derechos del 99 %.
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 | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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".