MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2117047826 · doi:10.1068/c1293

Patterns of Elitism within Participatory Environmental Governance

2014· article· en· W2117047826 on OpenAlexaffabout
John R. Parkins, A. John Sinclair

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironment and Planning C Government and Policy · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSustainability and Climate Change Governance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElitismCorporate governanceStakeholderEliteCitizen journalismEnvironmental governancePublic participationPolitical scienceEnvironmental planningPublic relationsSociologyPoliticsEconomicsManagementGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A close examination of venues for participatory environmental governance reveals highly constrained settings for citizen engagement. This situation is documented within the broader social milieu by Skocpol as a narrowing of public life which is characterized in this paper by professional, stakeholder, and elitist forms of participatory environmental governance. Case-study evidence is presented from three different governance settings in Canada (environmental assessment, land-use planning, and forest management) identifying two distinct types of elitism: elite representation by design and elite representation by procedure. Two options are presented as a response to this analysis. One option involves accepting elitism by strengthening the linkages between stakeholders and constituencies, and the other option involves fighting elitism by drawing on modes of community-based decision, deliberative activism, and promoting research that highlights the consequences of environmental elitism.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.871

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.215 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations35
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironment and Planning C Government and PolicySame topicSustainability and Climate Change GovernanceFrench-language works237,207