LA EVALUACIÃN DE LA SUSTENTABILIDAD EN PLANES URBANOS. UN RETO DE CONSTRUCCIÃN METODOLÃGICA: MONTREAL COMO CASO DE ESTUDIO
Bibliographic record
Abstract
En el presente trabajo mostramos el proceso metodológico para la evaluación cualitativa de la concepción de la sustentabilidad y su aplicación en la isla de Montreal. Al mismo tiempo mostramos nuestra postura teórica y los principales resultados emanados de la evaluación. Tomamos como instrumentos de análisis al Plan de Urbanismo de Montreal 2004 y al Plan Estratégico de Desarrollo Sustentable de la Colectividad Montrealesa 2005. Concluimos con dos reflexiones principales, primero, que los aspectos teóricos y pragmáticos de la sustentabilidad urbana en Montreal han sido tratados de manera orgánica, compleja, dinámica y flexible, donde la participación social y los valores individuales de todos los actores han sido elementos clave para avanzar en el camino hacia la sustentabilidad; y segundo, que para aproximarnos a un objeto de tales características se requiere construir procesos metodológicos orgánicos.
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 | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".