Bibliographic record
Abstract
An important success of deliberative democratic theory and practice over the last two decades has been to show that ordinary citizens are capable of sophisticated political judgments, if they participate in focused, deliberative processes. Among the most interesting of these processes are minipublics. A minipublic is a deliberative forum consisting of 20-500 participants, focused on a particular issue, selected as a representative sample of the public affected by the issue, and convened for a period of time sufficient for participants to form considered opinions and judgments. While the basic structure of these processes is already well developed, the question of what minipublics might do for a democratic political system - how they might come to function within it - is less well understood. Minipublics have primarily been justified as a way of providing advice to decision-makers that represents considered public opinion, or more generally as one means of increasing citizen participation in decision-making. I suggest here that in addition to these “democratic” roles, minipublics can serve in two key trust-based functions. They can serve as trusted information proxies to guide citizens’ political judgments in the absence of informed, deliberative opinion in broader publics. And they can serve as anticipatory publics in rapidly developing policy areas that are likely to generate issues, but which do not (yet) have public opinion attached to them. Both roles enhance citizens’ capacities to divide their political labours between participation and trust in ways that enhance democratic norms.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".