Deliberative Democratic Practices in Canada: An Analysis of Institutional Empowerment in Three Cases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Analyzing three timely Canadian cases, this article develops an important relationship between the theory and practice of deliberative democracy. The Canadian Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO), Nova Scotia Power Incorporated (NSP), and Toronto Community Housing Corporation (TCHC) recently held consultative initiatives appearing to seek the democratic empowerment of citizens. In each case, we see institutional features of deliberative democracy. But only the TCHC's participatory budgeting process begins to fulfill the promise of deliberative empowerment, that is, inclusive, informed, and equal public deliberation focused on a common good at the policy formulation, implementation, and evaluation stages. Why is the case of the TCHC characterized by greater deliberative empowerment than the cases of NSP and the NWMO? I explore possible explanations, all of which focus on the political context in which deliberation takes place. My overarching finding is that the motivation of policy elites within these organizations is key in the deliberative empowerment of citizens at the institutional level. I conclude by identifying factors that might account for the presence or absence of this motivation. Résumé. En analysant trois cas canadiens opportuns, cet article développe une relation importante entre la théorie et la pratique de la démocratie délibérative. La Société de gestion des déchets nucléaires (SGDN) du Canada, Nova Scotia Power Incorporated (NSPI) et la Toronto Community Housing Corporation (TCHC) ont récemment mis en oeuvre des initiatives consultatives qui semblent vouloir donner le pouvoir démocratique délibératif aux citoyens. Dans chaque cas, on observe des caractéristiques institutionnelles représentant les valeurs d'une démocratie délibérative. Mais le processus budgétaire participatif de la TCHC est le seul qui commence à tenir les promesses d'une prise de pouvoir délibérative, caractérisée par une délibération inclusive, informée et égalitaire, axée sur un bien commun, aux étapes de la formulation, de la mise en oeuvre et de l'évaluation d'une politique. Pourquoi le cas de la TCHC atteste-t-il d'une plus grande prise de pouvoir délibérative que ceux de NSPI et de la SGDN? J'explore des explications possibles, qui sont toutes centrées sur le contexte politique dans lequel survient la délibération. En général, je constate que la motivation des élites politiques à l'intérieur de ces organisations est primordiale pour la prise de pouvoir délibérative des citoyens au niveau institutionnel. En conclusion, j'identifie les facteurs pouvant justifier la présence ou l'absence de cette motivation.
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 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.028 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".