Public participation in a government land decision in Prince Edward Island: The case of Tracadie Cross Waste Watch Facility
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Public participation is a comerstone of democracy and a central value of Community Psychology. The purpose of this participatory action research was to develop an understanding of public participation as through the experiences of Islanders engaged in land decision making in Prince Edward Island. In particular a case study of the Tracadie Cross Waste Watch Facility was developed through document analysis and in-depth interviews. A sketch of public participation in Prince Edward Island was grounded in in-depth interviews from case study participants. as well as additional in-depth interviews with Islanders who have been engaged in land decision making independent of the case study. The results showed that land decisions are improving in terms of more participatory decision making, however participants still indicated the exclusive nature of Govemment land decision making. Participants described a desire to contribute to the decision making process and the loss of valuable local knowledge when citizens are excluded from sharing in the decision making. A multi-stakeholder perspective of effective public participation was developed, revealing effective public participation comprised of collaborative decision making, commtmity mobilization and, a long term commitment to educating the public on active community and government involvement. The outcome recommendations were developed to contribute to creating more effective public participation in Provincial Government land decisions. Six outcome recommendations were developed: seeking public involvement; creating equality in access to information; promoting public initiated participation; connecting multiple levels of organization; creating transparency in decision making; and mandating power to the public. Participants described a hope for the future of public participation in Govemment land in Prince Edward lsland and the power to achieve more participatory decision making through the power of communities.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".