Barriers to citizen participation: the missing voices of people living with low income
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article reflects the involvement of people living with low income in the discourse and decision-making on issues related to poverty. It reports on the process and outcomes of a 1-year project, developed by KAIROS1 aimed at identifying tools, strategies, and policies to increase the participation and engagement of people living in poverty in order to help reduce and eliminate poverty in Canada. It presents the reflections, analysis, and recommendations of 55 project participants from Charlottetown, Montreal, and Victoria – a large, a medium-sized, and a small city, respectively, in Canada. It highlights the use of learning circles as one approach to enhance citizen participation in policy development albeit with limitations of time, funding, and broad impact. It concludes by calling for: (i) an increase in local learning and action opportunities for people living in poverty; (ii) more supportive front-line interactions between governmental and non-governmental agencies and people living on low incomes; (iii) government policy initiatives to reduce poverty; and (iv) action to increase public understanding of poverty to reduce the stigmatization of, and discrimination against, people living in poverty.
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.
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 | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it