The Diversity of Public Participation Tools: Complementing or Competing With One Another?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. The objective of this article is to understand the relations of complementarity and competition between participation mechanisms, a topic that has as yet attracted little empirical investigation, although there is discussion on this issue in the public participation literature. We study the cases of Montreal and Quebec City, where, since the amalgamations in 2002, a public assembly/referendum process has been added to the participation tools already in place in the two cities (public hearings and neighbourhood councils). What can we learn from these two cases about the impact on public participation of the diversification of tools? To explore this subject, we have chosen to use a policy instrument framework to analyze three factors that affect the interactions between policy instruments: the design of the participation tools, the meaning that the actors give to these instruments, and the institutional context in which they are implemented. Résumé. L'objectif de cet article est de comprendre les relations de complémentarité et de compétition entre les dispositifs de participation publique, un thème peu traité empiriquement, même s'il y a des discussions sur cet enjeu dans la documentation sur la participation publique. Notre enquête porte sur le cas de Montréal et de Québec où, depuis les fusions municipales de 2002, un processus d'assemblée publique/référendum a été ajouté aux outils de participation déjà en place (audiences publiques et conseils de quartier). Qu'est-ce que ces deux cas peuvent nous apprendre sur les effets de la multiplication des dispositifs participatifs sur la pratique de la participation publique? Pour explorer ce sujet, nous analysons 3 facteurs qui influencent les interactions entre les instruments de politiques publiques : le design des dispositifs participatifs, la compréhension que les acteurs ont de ces instruments et le contexte institutionnel dans lequel ils sont mis en œuvre.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".