Bibliographic record
Abstract
Caribbean local government authorities have historically and to this day been viewed as critical to our region's development. The challenge however is how do we actually operationalize local government to achieve this developmental capacity? Moreover, in the context of good governance, the concern arises as to how to rebuild credibility to a system, which for many years has been 'hijacked' and even emasculated by central governments, at the same time being an arena for corruption and mismanagement, all in the context of self-interest, political expediency and even party paramountcy. This paper, while not seeking to be exhaustive, addresses some of these considerations. It starts by outlining the conceptual framework through which the author analyzes the principles and practices of governance, particularly in relation to democracy within a local government framework. It then reviews the reality of Caribbean local government and thereafter embarks on a discussion of the implementation or lack of implementation of democracy and inclusiveness within such systems. It concludes with policy recommendations for reforming Caribbean local governments in order that governance and participatory democracy might be restored and revitalized. In adopting this framework of analysis, it must be reiterated that whilst the concept of good governance is significantly broad, involving several ideals, namely democracy, development and public management, this paper concentrates on the considerations relating to democracy and participation. In adopting such a perspective however, the paper is cognizant of the fact that the concerns of participation and democracy are not exclusive of the considerations related to public management and development, and as such, the discussion includes all the ideals of governance. While the paper is grounded in the theoretical literature, it is however geared towards establishing policy directions.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.001 |
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".