MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7018161957

Democracy's Blueprints: The Globalization of Participatory Budgeting

2013· other· en· W7018161957 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueDIGITAL.CSIC (Spanish National Research Council (CSIC)) · 2013
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentNational Institute of Mental HealthMinnesota Population Center, University of MinnesotaNational Institutes of HealthRijksuniversiteit GroningenStonehill CollegeUniversity of South AlabamaWake Forest UniversityUniversity of TampaUniversity of DaytonPennsylvania State UniversityUniversity of ConnecticutUniversity of CincinnatiGeorge Mason UniversityVirginia Polytechnic Institute and State UniversityUniversidad del AtlánticoNational Science FoundationCase Western Reserve UniversityUniversity of MinnesotaCarolina Population Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel HillYork UniversityUniversity of MiamiUniversity of MissouriEmory UniversityBinghamton UniversityU.S. Department of Health and Human ServicesOhio State UniversityUniversity of California, Los AngelesCarleton CollegePrinceton UniversityFlorida Atlantic UniversityWorcester Polytechnic InstituteUniversity of La VerneArizona State UniversityUniversity of Wisconsin-MadisonPurdue UniversityUniversity of Wisconsin-Eau ClaireWayne State University
KeywordsNucleofectionGestational periodDiafiltrationTSG101Fusible alloyHyporeflexiaPretextArticular cartilage damage
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Orçamento Participativo was created in Porto Alegre in 1989. From then until now the OP has been globalized, so we find experiences in all five continents. The success achieved by the Porto Alegre experience has led governments of countries with cultural and political traditions very different entering the PB in their localities. However, the Brazilian OP has gradually transformed in that journey and it has been implemented according to the local contexts. We wonder what exactly has traveled, as well as the impact and success of the Participatory Budgenting beyond Brazil. To answer these questions we propose a debate on four experiences of four different continents: USA, Europe (Italy), Africa (DR Congo) and China. Thus, we could see the meaning of the globalization of a specific local experience and its different outcomes in political and cultural different contexts.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.075
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.318
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.075
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.023

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.

Opus teacher head0.257
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.125 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDIGITAL.CSIC (Spanish National Research Council (CSIC))French-language works237,207