Dynamics of multilevel governance in racial equality policies in Brazil
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we examine the dynamics of multilevel governance in racial equality policies in Brazil, comparing the national and local levels, specifically the federal government and the municipality of São Paulo. In addition to the theoretical elements that frame the discussion of federalism, we analyze the legal, organizational, and budgetary contexts inherent to the issue. Accordingly, we seek to answer the following questions: How is the governance of public policies on racial equality influenced by political and institutional factors? Has there been continuity in these policies at the local level, despite signs of dismantling at the national level? We adopt a mixed-methods approach, focusing on the period from 2019 to 2022. In our concluding remarks, we emphasize the need to expand studies that observe and compare local and national dynamics, while considering the impacts of policy dismantling and retrenchment. We also note that, although the federal level exhibited signs of dismantling, retrenchment, and discontinuity, the local level in São Paulo, based on budget data and analysis of organizational design, demonstrated continuity in racial equality policy, at least in terms of institutional instruments.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".