The Problems and Countermeasures of Citizen Participation in Urban Community Governance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The community as the cells of society is the foundation of building a socialist harmonious society, and also is the basic unit of promoting social progress and development. Community residents as the most widely participants and the most important main body in community governance, its participation is not only the essential requirement of community governance, but also is the foundation, motivation and guarantee of community development. At present, the urban community residents’ participation is still in its infancy in our country. There are many problems in practice, such as how to improve the community governance system, how to guide the community residents to participate, and how to arouse the enthusiasm of community residents to participate. These problems influenced the construction and development of community. This paper analyzed the present situation and then put out the performances and existing problems of citizen participation in community governance under the support of basic theory of community governance and combined with the literature research of citizen participation in community governance in our country. According to these experiences and problems of community governance, the paper put forward the countermeasures and Suggestions of improving the residents’ participation mechanism from four aspects of the relationship between government and civil, citizen participation consciousness, legal regulations and compatibility mechanism. Through the practice of these countermeasures and Suggestions, the author expect to really increase the residents’ participation enthusiasm and promote the comprehensive development of community.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".