The State of <i>Participatory</i> Democratic Theory
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
Abstract This article describes the origin, theoretical articulation, and decline of the theory of participatory democracy and makes a case for its revival, given its unique potential to illuminate recent empirical research on participatory democracy. Specifically, it is argued that while the theory of deliberative democracy is often described as “participatory,” its primary focus on the mode of participation, namely deliberation among citizens, is overly narrow and fails to effectively address sectors of participation, namely the household, workplace, and the like. Because participatory democratic theory encompasses both modes and sectors of participation, the revival of participatory democratic theory will prove to be a more effective tool for revealing the strengths and weaknesses of actual participatory democracies. This article concludes by demonstrating how a revival of participatory democratic theory can illuminate the ongoing experiments in participatory democracy in Porto Alegre, Brazil, and moreover shows how those experiments can illustrate the strengths and weaknesses of participatory democratic theory and how the theory of participatory democracy can benefit from evidence from its practice.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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