Bilancio Pop della Città di Torino - Popular Financial Reporting City of Turin 2016/2017
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Citizens are increasingly demanding public responsibility and government programs that are more attentive to the real needs of the territory, particularly in terms of managing public resources. In English-speaking countries, a form of social reporting is widespread, which has characteristics of transparency and understanding even for those who do not normally deal with the economic assessment and the services provided. This reporting is called Popular Financial Reporting, renamed the Pop Budget. The City, which has always been innovative in terms of reporting and related communication, has already experimented with the support of the University of Turin in drafting the 2014/2015 POP budget. The document was produced following the best practices that are present internationally in the English-speaking countries. The Pop budget is indeed a widespread document in the United States, Canada and Australia. The Department of Management of the University of Turin has produced the document according to guidelines and processes defined by the Scientific Steering Committee that has taken care of the methodological references and operational supervision together with the working group of methodological and operational application that has busy making the document.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.040 | 0.014 |
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".