Contemporary Regulation of Public Policy Participation of the Saami and Roma: A Truncated Process
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Participation of the Roma and Saami in public policy decision-making reveals several inherent shortcomings of current democratic decision-making institutions present in their structure, choice of political orientations and legal norms within States and at the supranational level. Furthermore, it exposes the problematic nature of sociocultural pluralism, specifically the extent to which the political decision-making process makes space for heterogeneous identities and identity-based perceptions. The legal normativity that establishes a right to participation in political decision-making for minority and indigenous peoples tends to reproduce the illusion of inclusion within democratic societies. In actuality, however, the overriding importance conferred on the interests of the dominant group confines participation by marginalised groups to the periphery of the system. With this in mind, our goal is to present a relatively precise picture of the current avenues available to the Roma and Saami for participation in public policy decisions. We begin with an overview of the existing forums for participation and then present the legal foundations of such participation, providing an assessment of the system throughout.
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 | 0.018 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.044 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".