The Impact of Institutionalization, Politicization and Mobilization on the Direct Participation of Citizens Experiencing Poverty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. This article seeks to evaluate how democratic and deliberative the direct participation of citizens experiencing poverty is in the definition and implementation of public policies that affect them. A comparison of Belgian and Quebec processes involving persons in situation of poverty indicates that the procedural dimensions of participation (franchise, quality and accountability) are clearly strengthened by institutionalized processes and weakened when processes become politicized. However, the authenticity of the process (a dimension tied to outcomes) remains largely independent from the nature of these processes and depends instead on the mobilization of social actors and especially of anti-poverty organizations. Résumé. Cette article évalue dans quelle mesure la participation directe des citoyens en situation de pauvreté à l'élaboration et la mise en œuvre des politiques publiques les concernant est démocratique et délibérative. Une comparaison des processus belges et québécois de participation des personnes en situation de pauvreté démontre que les dimensions procédurales de la participation (franchise, qualité et garantie) sont clairement renforcées par l'institutionnalisation, tandis qu'elles sont affaiblies par la politisation des processus. Par ailleurs, l'authenticité du processus (une dimension liée aux résultats) reste largement indépendante de la nature des mécanismes et dépend plutôt de la mobilisation des acteurs sociaux et particulièrement de celle des organisations de lutte contre la pauvreté.
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 | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".